Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Wickerman]

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.

I did tactfully warn Prosector about introducing his pet theory in the early pages of this thread, and predictably it had gone to hell in a handbasket. Not the direct fault of Prosector, as at least he was being open and honest. But introducing a suspect is like weaving a red flag to some, who then choose to lay blame with Prosector. Such is the hospitality at Casebook.

Is it too much to hope that this thread can be salvaged?

[The Good Michael]

Jon,

This is a good thread because many if not most of us believe that there was some level of expertise used in opening up the bodies and removing organs. That expertise could run the gamut from butchers to surgeons, and from barbers to hunters, but there was some understanding of anatomy and some experience with a knife. We find that most of those who don't buy this idea are people who have pet suspects that don't fit and logic interferes with favoritism.

If Prosector is a surgeon, his knowledge is quite important for getting the auto-naysayers (suspect clingers) to re-think things if at all possible.

I for one am looking forward to what may come of this thread, and I am as skeptical as a person can be.

Mike

[Wickerman]

I think it could be done to a large extent with feel. I've done it with deer in the dark countless times. You just have to know where it is and use the tip of the knife. The kidney is more dense than any other organ situated below the diaphragm, like a rubber ball...5 to ten seconds once the viscera is out of the way. That takes longer than actually removing the kidney.

But when you removed the kidney, was it still encased in the fatty membrane, or do you mean extracted from within that too?

When I was an apprentice in butchering it was no effort (in my opinion) to extract the kidney while still encased, but removing the actual kidney from within the fat, without scoring or nicking the skin of the kidney itself did call for patience depending how you did it.

I actually scored the fat and essentially squeezed the kidney out while running my thumbs around the kidney (under the fat) on either side, it would pop out. But I had time and daylight on my side

[Wickerman]

I'd tender a guess at Prosector's suspect having a Fenian/Pheonix Park link considering the particular interest in Kelly

Nick Warren, a qualified surgeon, also thought a good knowledge of anatomy was shown in the way the killer removed the heart of Kelly

And yet, it was Nick Warren who raised the possibility that a hatchet had been used on Mary Kelly. At that point I had to wonder just how much difference there was between the opinion of a professional and a layperson when all you have is a faded photograph to look at.

[Hunter]

This is a good thread because many if not most of us believe that there was some level of expertise used in opening up the bodies and removing organs. That expertise could run the gamut from butchers to surgeons, and from barbers to hunters, but there was some understanding of anatomy and some experience with a knife...

If Prosector is a surgeon, his knowledge is quite important for getting the auto-naysayers (suspect clingers) to re-think things if at all possible.

Yes indeed. A human ovary is not likely to be a haphazard target... especially three times. The medical evidence is as close to any real evidence that remains in some detail.

Prosector has pointed to some aspects that are challenging. The idea that the two ft. of colon was removed from Catherine Eddowes to access the kidney, instead of what most of us believed was a clumsy blunder, is thought provoking.

[lynn cates]

scientific

Hello Michael.

"many if not most of us believe that there was some level of expertise used in opening up the bodies and removing organs."

Quite. In fact, Baxter referred to Annie's cuts as "apparently scientific in manner."

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

But when you removed the kidney, was it still encased in the fatty membrane, or do you mean extracted from within that too?

I lift it out with the fat still on it. Of course, most deer don't have much being rather lean animals. Its easier to trim up when its in hand.

The way the organs in the thorax are removed is the same as the way Kelly's heart was excised. Its not necessary to cut above the sternum. The diaphragm is cut away when the liver is removed. You remove these organs by feel. Grab the lung where it is connected to the trachea and cut the trachea while pulling away with the other hand. The heart is the same way. Grab it with one hand and cut the main vessels with the other while maintaining tension. Don't have to dull a good knife cutting through cartilage and the animal gets less debris in the cavity when dragging it out.

Funny Mary Kelly's killer removed her heart much the same way.

[Hunter]

Meant to say uterus instead of ovary in post 320...multitasking.

[DVV]

This is a good thread

A very good one.

That expertise could run the gamut from butchers to surgeons, and from barbers to hunters

He was no butcher and no surgeon, according to Prosector.

We find that most of those who don't buy this idea are people who have pet suspects that don't fit and logic interferes with favoritism.

This is an ongoing debate, Mike. No need to buy anything from the outset.

Pet suspect ? Wait, you don't know Prosector's suspect yet.
And you can't dismiss Bond's opinion just because you want to make fun of some suspects. That would be unwise, a bit childish, and off-topic. I don't remember having named any suspect on this thread.
Who has ?

[The Good Michael]

Pet suspect ? Wait, you don't know Prosector's suspect yet.
And you can't dismiss Bond's opinion just because you want to make fun of some suspects. That would be unwise, a bit childish, and off-topic. I don't remember having named any suspect on this thread.
Who has ?

My concern had to do with any suspect that people reject possibilities for because they don't fit what they've imagined their suspect to be like. To suggest this doesn't happen would be dishonest. If we can come to some agreement on anatomical knowledge, we may be able to look at our personal suspects with greater clarity and deeper scrutiny. This would include Prosector and myself. As for myself, I have just about dropped the Italian ice vendor that I've been clutching to for years. Aside from being uneducated, I haven't seen enough info on dwarf barber-surgeons to absolutely let go and cling tenuously to my thread of hope.

Mike

[lynn cates]

suggestions

Hello Michael.

"If we can come to some agreement on anatomical knowledge, we may be able to look at our personal suspects with greater clarity and deeper scrutiny."

Completely agree. Any suggestions for implementation?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Prosector's explanation of "Invaginating the sigmoid into the rectum", and why it is done, coupled with the killers ability to divide the root of the messentary, and his choice to slice around the umbilicus instead of across it when opening the abdomen, all taken together, presents a convincing case that this killer was not just a lucky slash & grab artist.

[The Good Michael]

"If we can come to some agreement on anatomical knowledge, we may be able to look at our personal suspects with greater clarity and deeper scrutiny."

Completely agree. Any suggestions for implementation?

Implementation of what? Some sort of compendium of necessary knowledge to be able to do what the killer did? It could lead to chaos as each murder had some differences and a different hand can be seen in each death. Yet, that might be due to many circumstances rather than a different hand. That would include such things as: mental state of the killer(s), alcohol levels, lighting, tools used, proximity to other people, police patrol patterns, so many variables and nothing we could agree on. I would suggest just stopping with "He understood at least some anatomical concepts, had some experience with taking out organs(from watching or doing himself)" and then look at the list of suspects we're left with. Unfortunately, there will always be someone's "logic" that will allow them to retain a hold on their suspect regardless.

Mike

[The Good Michael]

Yes indeed. A human ovary is not likely to be a haphazard target... especially three times. The medical evidence is as close to any real evidence that remains in some detail.

Prosector has pointed to some aspects that are challenging. The idea that the two ft. of colon was removed from Catherine Eddowes to access the kidney, instead of what most of us believed was a clumsy blunder, is thought provoking.

Just like working on a car. Sometimes you have to remove some things to get to the part you want to work on.

Mike

[DVV]

My concern had to do with any suspect that people reject possibilities for because they don't fit what they've imagined their suspect to be like.

Agreed, Mike. Personally I've never rejected any possibility but have asked some questions to Prosector and Hunter.

If we can come to some agreement on anatomical knowledge, we may be able to look at our personal suspects with greater clarity and deeper scrutiny.

This is not the time to come to some agreement yet.

It would be foolish to argue that Prosector is more qualified than Dr Bond, and then dismiss the latter. Bond, we must remember, has been chosen by the police before the Dorset Street murder. Clearly, they were not satisfied with Phillips' opinion.

We must also keep in mind how adamant he was : In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific nor anatomical knowledge. In my opinion he does not even possess the the technical knowledge of a butcher or horse slaughterer or any person accustomed to cut up dead animals.

One important point, in my ignorant opinion, is the way he gained access to the internal organs. Or should I say the different ways ?
Why did he detach some flaps of flesh in some cases (Chapman, Kelly), and use a completely different method in Mitre Square ?
Would a specialist do that ?
For the time being, I don't think so.