Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[DVV]

"It required a great deal of [medical] knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed..."

But do the mutilations indicate that he had intended to remove the left kidney from the outset ?

[Trevor Marriott]

We are going to have to agree to disagree here. I mentioned grabbing in the dark for one very simple reason. When a human being cannot see very well they invariably switch to touch, and I think you will agree that the light in some of the murder locations was not the best. It is not beyond the realms of plausibility that the killer was not depending solely upon his vision.



Yes, you have to know where it is, agreed, but if you are Jack all you need to do his hack and slash your way to it, and one thing that nobody can argue is that during the attack on Kate Eddowes, the killer did a lot of hacking and slashing.


Well I'm certainly no surgeon, however I am capable of a few minutes research and the opinions of just four medical websites is that a Nephrectomy normally takes 3 hours but can take as little as two. and no, not as fast as Jack, but then Jack was not trying to save a life.

Just read the report on Kate Eddowes, look all the damage done, and then point out exactly where any kind of training or skill is shown. I tend to agree with the assumption that the killer knew where to find the organs, but we also tend to assume that the kidney removed from Eddowes body was in in good condition, why? For all we (or Doctor Brown) know it could have been just as badly hacked as her liver was.

I think the killer had some anatomical knowledge yes, but surgical skill? I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing it.

Hi
Can I say that the killer certainly did not slash or hack his way as you and others suggest.

Dr Brown says "Carefully removed" now carefully removed equates to anatomical knowledge in first being able to locate the kidney, and then being able to remove it "carefully", and "carefully" then equates to time needed. The killer did not have that time nor were the conditions favourable to carry out these removals.

These actions cannot be done in a rush the quicker someone is trying to work the more botched the removal becomes unless you are a super Victorian surgeon, and if you have a design on the organs why are you going to botch it.?

Another point which I keep mentioning with regards to the suggestion that the killer had a design on the organs, is that if that were the case why would he stab her all those times actions which would likely as not damage any organs he might be seeking. Besides if he were after organs why not simply cut the throats and then remove the organs, the same would apply to the suggestion that he was trophy seeking.

I have attached two pics which I have already posted on another site to illustrate what I have said. One shows the position of the uterus and the other the kidney. There has to have been an element of surgical skill, and you can forget the suggestion that it could have been a butcher.

[lynn cates]

thanks

Hello Cris. Thanks for that post. It may save tons of useless excogitations.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

design

Hello Trevor.

"Can I say that the killer certainly did not slash or hack his way as you and others suggest."

I think you can, as you just did.

"the quicker someone is trying to work the more botched the removal becomes"

Precisely! Probably would not remove the entire organ--only a piece of it (like the piece of uterus).

"if you have a design on the organs why are you going to botch it?"

Did anyone suggest that there was a design on Kate's organs? That claim refers to Annie--not Kate.

"Another point which I keep mentioning with regards to the suggestion that the killer had a design on the organs, is that if that were the case why would he stab her all those times actions which would likely as not damage any organs he might be seeking."

Pretty much agree. Of course, the stabs could have been mostly collateral damage.

"you can forget the suggestion that it could have been a butcher."

Why? The doctors seem not to have.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

Hi David,

But do the mutilations indicate that he had intended to remove the left kidney from the outset ?

No they don't, David, but they do indicate that at some point he decided to possess a kidney. Much is made of the collateral damage done to the victim in this case. Notice that nearly all of the internal damage is done in relation to that kidney - the left lobe of the liver, the pancreas and the spleen. The peritoneal lining directly above the kidney is cut, which had to be to gain access, and the only reason to cut it would be to gain access. The renal artery and vein were cut. The kidney wasn't just grabbed and pulled out.

[caz]

Hi Prosector,

Congratulations on the best and most informative thread in ages!

I've been amused and appalled in equal measure by the various reactions to your posts, although I suppose they could have been predicted easily enough.

I have noticed that many people simply don't absorb what they are being told; others discard, argue against or twist any information that threatens their pet theories; while a couple of fools keep rushing in to tell us how much they know about cutting into human beings and removing certain organs, only to be exposed as way out of their depth by your own experience and expertise.

Wonderful stuff.

I am busy eliminating suspects mentally as I read on. I trust others are doing the same, if they are honest with themselves.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

I am busy eliminating suspects mentally as I read on. I trust others are doing the same, if they are honest with themselves.

Darn it Caz! Next you'll be telling me that a plasterer wasn't good enough with his trowel or a groom who could shoe horses couldn't unshoe a kidney.

Mike

[Hunter]

I know this is never going to happen, and Prosecutor has tipped his hand as well, but more might just be understood if we could forget about the 'suspects' and just take an honest look at the evidence.

But that ain't gonna happen and it will still be misinterpreted and misunderstood as most continue to drive a square peg into a round hole.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor.

"Can I say that the killer certainly did not slash or hack his way as you and others suggest."

I think you can, as you just did.

"the quicker someone is trying to work the more botched the removal becomes"

Precisely! Probably would not remove the entire organ--only a piece of it (like the piece of uterus).

"if you have a design on the organs why are you going to botch it?"

Did anyone suggest that there was a design on Kate's organs? That claim refers to Annie--not Kate.

"Another point which I keep mentioning with regards to the suggestion that the killer had a design on the organs, is that if that were the case why would he stab her all those times actions which would likely as not damage any organs he might be seeking."

Pretty much agree. Of course, the stabs could have been mostly collateral damage.

"you can forget the suggestion that it could have been a butcher."

Why? The doctors seem not to have.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn
None of the doctors could agree and their statements all conflict with each other that's why I say it is wrong to wholly rely on them. Unless of course you want to use one to prop up a viewpoint

[lynn cates]

Ah!

Hello Caroline.

"I am busy eliminating suspects mentally as I read on."

Now you're talking!

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

square peg, round hole

Hello Cris.

"if we could forget about the 'suspects' and just take an honest look at the evidence.

But that ain't gonna happen and it will still be misinterpreted and misunderstood as most continue to drive a square peg into a round hole."

Completely agree.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Which?

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"None of the doctors could agree and their statements all conflict with each other"

It would be helpful if you indicated which statements are at variance. More than once--in context of some single killing--a doctor will state that he agrees with another.

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

"you can forget the suggestion that it could have been a butcher."

Why? The doctors seem not to have.

Cheers.
LC

WE are putting great store in the doctor's opinions?

Ok.

Dr Wynne Baxter

"The throat was dissevered deeply. I noticed that the incision of the skin was jagged, and reached right round the neck."

And again

"The incisions of the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck on a line with the angle of the jaw, carried entirely round and again in front of the neck, and ending at a point about midway between the jaw and the sternum or breast bone on the right hand. There were two distinct clean cuts on the body of the vertebrae on the left side of the spine. They were parallel to each other, and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures between the side processes of bone of the vertebrae had an appearance as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck"

So obviously Dr Philips was of an opinion that the killer attempted to severe Annie Chapman's head from her body.

The killer was unable (despite trying) to decapitate Annie Chapman.

I'd say an experienced butcher of animals could accomplish this procedure with ease. So no, not a butcher at work here

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Trevor. Thanks.

"None of the doctors could agree and their statements all conflict with each other"

It would be helpful if you indicated which statements are at variance. More than once--in context of some single killing--a doctor will state that he agrees with another.

Cheers.
LC

Lynn
I cant be arsed keep going through and over the same things again. About once a month the same topic keeps cropping up with the same discussion and the same conclusions by the same people.

To answer your request what springs to mind are the different times they say for removal, and then some say anatomical knowledge, some say limited anatomical knowledge Bond says no anatomical knowledge.

Also take a look at the various newspapers that reported on the inquests they reported the same inquest but managed to get different statements printed by the same persons at the end of the day you have to ask the question

"Who really said what" if they ever said it at all.?

[DVV]

No they don't, David, but they do indicate that at some point he decided to possess a kidney. Much is made of the collateral damage done to the victim in this case. Notice that nearly all of the internal damage is done in relation to that kidney - the left lobe of the liver, the pancreas and the spleen. The peritoneal lining directly above the kidney is cut, which had to be to gain access, and the only reason to cut it would be to gain access. The renal artery and vein were cut. The kidney wasn't just grabbed and pulled out.

Most interesting, Cris, thanks.
For the sake of precision : right when he decided to possess the kidney (ie : just before he started making some "internal damage in relation to that kidney") could he had "felt" it with his fingers, or was it still out of reach ?