Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[The Good Michael]

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.

Actually I absolutely differ here. I think any modern intern in the UK knows a lot more about causes of death, diseases, time of death, and a zillion other things than Bond could have known. His knowledge was a product of its time, and I'm sure if he were alive today, he'd absolutely freak out about how much of his knowledge can now be discarded. We have to use the words of past experts as we have nothing else, but we need to paraphrase and give those words a modern context so that they may be understood better.

Mike

[DVV]

Actually I absolutely differ here. I think any modern intern in the UK knows a lot more about causes of death, diseases, time of death, and a zillion other things than Bond could have known. His knowledge was a product of its time, and I'm sure if he were alive today, he'd absolutely freak out about how much of his knowledge can now be discarded. We have to use the words of past experts as we have nothing else, but we need to paraphrase and give those words a modern context so that they may be understood better.

Mike

You're clearly making a mistake, here, Mike.
It's not about TOD, diseases, etc.
It's about anatomical/scientific knowledge in 1888.
Therefore, on this subject, Bond was a zillion time more qualified than a modern intern. You know why ? Because he was living in 1888.
It was a "1888 issue", debated by 1888 experts. And they (Phillips and Bond) differed.

[The Good Michael]

You're clearly making a mistake, here, Mike.
It's not about TOD, diseases, etc.
It's about anatomical/scientific knowledge in 1888.
Therefore, on this subject, Bond was a zillion time more qualified than a modern intern. You know why ? Because he was living in 1888.
It was a "1888 issue", debated by 1888 experts. And they (Phillips and Bond) differed.

I'm talking about all aspects of medicine. If Bond were to practice today only knowing what experts knew in 1888, he'd be shot by angry patients.

Mike

[DVV]

I'm talking about all aspects of medicine. If Bond were to practice today only knowing what experts knew in 1888, he'd be shot by angry patients.

Mike

Certainly, but that's irrelevant.

The question was : "What amount of medical/anatomical knowledge did the killer posses ?"

And I'm just saying that to answer this, you have to know precisely what was considered to be such knowledge in 1888.
Of course, Bond and Phillips knew that more precisely than any modern intern.

[The Good Michael]

Certainly, but that's irrelevant.

The question was : "What amount of medical/anatomical knowledge did the killer posses ?"

And I'm just saying that to answer this, you have to know precisely what was considered to be such knowledge in 1888.
Of course, Bond and Phillips knew that more precisely than any modern intern.

and that lack of real medical knowledge by today's standards give us nothing. We have to translate and modernize.

Mike

[DVV]

and that lack of real medical knowledge by today's standards give us nothing. We have to translate and modernize.

Mike

No, Mike, sorry.
Not for that issue.
Bond and Phillips were at the vanguard of "1888 anatomical knowledge".
No need to modernize anything here, that would be a mistake.
We have to compare the killer's knowledge and skills in a 1888 context.
In other terms : could he be a 1888 butcher ? a 1888 medical student ? a 1888 surgeon ?

[The Good Michael]

No, Mike, sorry.
Not for that issue.
Bond and Phillips were at the vanguard of "1888 anatomical knowledge".
No need to modernize anything here, that would be a mistake.
We have to compare the killer's knowledge and skills in a 1888 context.
In other terms : could he be a 1888 butcher ? a 1888 medical student ? a 1888 surgeon ?

Really, you can tell me what would be a mistake to do? How arrogant.

Mike

[DVV]

How stubborn.
I'm merely pointing out that a modern intern can't know more than Phillips and Bond what meant "anatomical knowledge" in 1888.
What is arrogant ?
This is a valid point.
Take it (or not) easy.

[lynn cates]

consensus

Hello Michael. Thanks.

I meant, How can we work towards a consensus?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Take care, dear friends.
Don't be arrogant and just reply "Agreed, well said" to each and every post from Mike.

[Phil Carter]

Hello Prosector, all,

THE single most important point, in my honest opinion, on this thread is the cutting around the navel.

Now I don't know about all others here, but it struck me quite strongly that surgeons (when operating) deliberately cut around the navel because of the hardness of the navel cord, internally and the problem with sewing up such cuts again.

The indication here is clear. Whoever killed Eddowes, for example, by design or by sheer habit, to cut around the navel stands out as particularly "surgeon/doctor-like" behaviour wise.

I am not sure that a butcher would automatically do this in the course of his work, but bear in mind that any of such profession would be able to move said animal body around far more easily, either one hung on a hook or laid on a slab. And of course in good light and good time.

Whatever the points or arguments here, the cutting around the navel seems to have been done DELIBERATELY, and "anatomical knowledge" here is now thrust into another side issue. Because "anatomical skill" is being shown. Known skill. The skillful avoidance of something that possibly few non-anatomists would have known. Yes it may include butchers.. but part-time barbers? Cricket-playing barristers or teachers?

This point IS important. Caz has said she is dismissing suspects as she reads... well, the knowledge of the avoiding of the cutting of the navel is something, for me, that is unlikely known to Kosminski or Druitt. Most unlikely infact.

Only one point in this intruiges me. Prosector noted that the avoidance of the cutting of the navel is done, for the most part, as it is difficult to sew up again...

Surely the killer cannot be thinking of the gentlemen conducting the post mortems on these unfortunate women? The killer is actually making thimngs "easier" for said gentlemen...Is he giving them a clue as to his profession, either deliberately or by sheer forgetfulness? Very interesting indeed.



Phil

[The Good Michael]

THE single most important point, in my honest opinion, on this thread is the cutting around the navel.

Now I don't know about all others here, but it struck me quite strongly that surgeons (when operating) deliberately cut around the navel because of the hardness of the navel cord, internally and the problem with sewing up such cuts again.

The indication here is clear. Whoever killed Eddowes, for example, by design or by sheer habit, to cut around the navel stands out as particularly "surgeon/doctor-like" behaviour wise.

I am not sure that a butcher would automatically do this in the course of his work, but bear in mind that any of such profession would be able to move said animal body around far more easily, either one hung on a hook or laid on a slab. And of course in good light and good time.

Whatever the points or arguments here, the cutting around the navel seems to have been done DELIBERATELY, and "anatomical knowledge" here is now thrust into another side issue. Because "anatomical skill" is being shown. Known skill. The skillful avoidance of something that possibly few non-anatomists would have known. Yes it may include butchers.. but part-time barbers? Cricket-playing barristers or teachers?

This point IS important. Caz has said she is dismissing suspects as she reads... well, the knowledge of the avoiding of the cutting of the navel is something, for me, that is unlikely known to Kosminski or Druitt. Most unlikely infact.

Only one point in this intruiges me. Prosector noted that the avoidance of the cutting of the navel is done, for the most part, as it is difficult to sew up again...

Surely the killer cannot be thinking of the gentlemen conducting the post mortems on these unfortunate women? The killer is actually making thimngs "easier" for said gentlemen...Is he giving them a clue as to his profession, either deliberately or by sheer forgetfulness? Very interesting indeed.
l

Phil,

The cutting around the navel may have been for reasons of aesthetics, but aesthetics connected to real-life surgeries he may have performed, and unconscious in this instance. As for Kosminski, we don't know about any medical training, but a case may be made for his having some. That is unimportant at this time, however.

Cheers,

Mike

[Phil Carter]

Phil,

The cutting around the navel may have been for reasons of aesthetics, but aesthetics connected to real-life surgeries he may have performed, and unconscious in this instance. As for Kosminski, we don't know about any medical training, but a case may be made for his having some. That is unimportant at this time, however.

Cheers,

Mike

Hello Mike,

Yes, it MAY have been for reasons of aesthetics. It may not have either. It may have been unconscious, it may well have been a conscious decision.
As for Kosminski, a case may be made for him not having any medical training.

All I am saying here Mike is that the avoidance.. and I use that word deliberately..avoidance, of the navel is significant. It has definitive connections with known procedure.


Phil

[Wickerman]

Would a specialist do that ?

Perhaps, if we avoid narrowing the window too much by labeling him a 'specialist'?

[Observer]

Hello Prosector, all,

THE single most important point, in my honest opinion, on this thread is the cutting around the navel.

Now I don't know about all others here, but it struck me quite strongly that surgeons (when operating) deliberately cut around the navel because of the hardness of the navel cord, internally and the problem with sewing up such cuts again.

The indication here is clear. Whoever killed Eddowes, for example, by design or by sheer habit, to cut around the navel stands out as particularly "surgeon/doctor-like" behaviour wise.


Whatever the points or arguments here, the cutting around the navel seems to have been done DELIBERATELY, and "anatomical knowledge" here is now thrust into another side issuebarristers or teachers?

Hi Phil

You know, it could have been sheer luck that the killer avoided cutting through Kate Eddowes naval. I know Prosector has provided ample examples of why he believes the killer exhibited anatomical knowledge. My question would be are there any meaningless amateurish cuts on display? It does seem as if the killer did display some traits of anatomical knowledge, but I'd suggest that the pointless cuts are a manifestation of the killers spite and anger, not to mention lust.

Regards

Observer