Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Batman]

Ah, thankyou, I see what you mean.

If you notice Dr. Bond's report stated that her breasts had been removed by circular incisions. This would allow visual access to the rib cage where he would insert the knife between the ribs to sever the upper heart attachments.

Both breasts were more or less removed by circular incisions, the muscle down to the ribs being attached to the breasts. The intercostals between the fourth, fifth, and sixth ribs were cut through and the contents of the thorax visible through the openings.

Between the 4th and 5th and 6th ribs would be around the middle of the ribcage. To get to the heart's top would require going between 1 and 2 or 2 and 3, but even 3 to 4, let alone between 4,5 and 6 would be quite a task.

Performing a double mastectomy so as to get access to the aorta, ateries and superior vena cava because there is no instrument to open the ribcage is not something I would expect from a general member of the public who doesn't have practical applied anatomical experience.

The very top of the heart is well protected beneath the chest bone. There are also lungs and a lower trachae to deal with and the upper portion of the oescophagus, all of this red in the dim flickering light of Kelly's fireplace.

I think the fact he can do this and get kidneys and in other instances perform a hysterectomy in the dark in minutes leaves me with no alternative but to believe JtR has observed medical procedures involving such anatomical knowledge.

What I see in JtRs signature is the idea of someone with medical knowledge and a need to de-feminize prostitutes in a lust killing and is able to speedly conducted organ removal due to that applied anatomical experience.

[Errata]

Just by way of clarification, several organs were removed from the body, but still found in the room - eg: placed around the bed. None of these were described as 'absent', so we can take it that 'absent' in this case means 'from the room'.

It's also worth noting that some organs are unaccounted for. Which may simply mean they were removed with other organs as a block, but they were not specifically listed as being either present or absent.

[RockySullivan]

The idea that two separate killers with anatomical knowledge were targeting prostitutes and removing uteri in the same year, leaving bodies (or parts) between police beats is absurd.

[RockySullivan]

Without wanting to create another uproar here on the topic of the heart. All I will say is that in my opinion there is more evidence to show that he did not take it away, than there is to show he did.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why eviscerate and leave the organs? Why was the kidney sent to lusk? Why take out the intestines and throw them over the shoulder? But the strongest point for ripper taking organs is torso removed uterus. It also indicates Torso and the ripper are one and the same.

[Wickerman]

The problem is that there is a lot of organ parts in around the upper frontal ribs. He would have to locate the top of the heart without seeing it and sever at this point. While it might seem like an easy smash and grab I saw a video from a surgeon who explained this better than I can.

2:40 in at www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPg-D4Jxb6M

Ah, thankyou, I see what you mean.

Yes Nick Warren is a well known surgeon among Ripper enthusiasts, he used to write on the case.

I notice he did say that the heart must have been removed from underneath.
We should perhaps not read too much into that.
The killers (left?) hand will have grasped the heart from below, yes, but there is no way he could have used the knife (in his right hand?) to sever the arteries & attachments from below at the same time.

If you notice Dr. Bond's report stated that her breasts had been removed by circular incisions. This would allow visual access to the rib cage where he would insert the knife between the ribs to sever the upper heart attachments.
So he still does remove the heart from below, because that is the direction it was withdrawn from.
However, I think it would be extremely difficult for him to sever the upper attachments to the heart from the same location.
This had to be done from the front of the torso, likely by inserting the blade through the ribs.

[Batman]

Maybe I am not understanding the argument.
The heart lies behind the ribcage, if you do not have the means to cut the ribs to remove them then the only way is to go under the ribcage.
What other explanation is required?

The problem is that there is a lot of organ parts in around the upper frontal ribs. He would have to locate the top of the heart without seeing it and sever at this point. While it might seem like an easy smash and grab I saw a video from a surgeon who explained this better than I can.

2:40 in at www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPg-D4Jxb6M

[Richard Patterson]

Just by way of clarification, several organs were removed from the body, but still found in the room - eg: placed around the bed. None of these were described as 'absent', so we can take it that 'absent' in this case means 'from the room'.

Thanks Wickerman. What I assumed also.

[Batman]

Hi Batman

Is that knowledge, or knowledge plus skill?

Applied anatomical knowledge with skill at organ location and removal.

[Wickerman]

Hi. Do you mean taken from the body or the room?

Thanks.

Just by way of clarification, several organs were removed from the body, but still found in the room - eg: placed around the bed. None of these were described as 'absent', so we can take it that 'absent' in this case means 'from the room'.

[Richard Patterson]

Maybe I am not understanding the argument.
The heart lies behind the ribcage, if you do not have the means to cut the ribs to remove them then the only way is to go under the ribcage.
What other explanation is required?

I mean accessing the heart by cutting directly into the pericardium as part of Virchow's method of an organ-by-organ removal, instead of say leaving the heart in situ or removing it with the pericardium intact. Although standard practice in most pathology departments today, this was a new approach in 1888.

[Harry D]

Off-topic: Trevor, why don't you just put the link to your website in your signature? It would save you having to type/copy n' paste it everytime you post.

[Richard Patterson]

Without wanting to create another uproar here on the topic of the heart. All I will say is that in my opinion there is more evidence to show that he did not take it away, than there is to show he did.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Hi. Do you mean taken from the body or the room?

Thanks.

[Trevor Marriott]

Thompson would have treated the rest of the body like a butchers shop if he didn't want to be caught. Why would he want to show he was a doctor? If the heart was not taken away is an if.

Without wanting to create another uproar here on the topic of the heart. All I will say is that in my opinion there is more evidence to show that he did not take it away, than there is to show he did.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

The partition on the side of the bed prevented him from going there.

I have never heard a coherent explanation for the way he removed the heart from the top going under the rib cage without recourse to anatomical knowledge. Its not something one achieves by chance.

Maybe I am not understanding the argument.
The heart lies behind the ribcage, if you do not have the means to cut the ribs to remove them then the only way is to go under the ribcage.
What other explanation is required?

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Richard.
Virchow's method of dissecting every organ was not new by 1888. He first criticized the old method of focusing only on specific organs in 1859, and suggested that in an autopsy every organ should be investigated.
Virchow published on this approach in the 1870's.

I notice you make particular reference to accessing the heart via the pericardium, and the removal of the organ by the killer.
Virchow appears to suggest dissecting the heart while still in the body.

Perhaps I missed it, but do you see where Virchow suggests removal of the heart via the Pericardium?

I also do not see the connection you make below:

Thanks for the information. It looks like I was wrong about describing the Virchow method as brand new. If this is true, I am sorry if I mislead anyone.

Dr. Bond finished his medical studied before 1865, so he still could have been unaware of the Virchow method, which was published in 1870’s. My reading of the method does indicate that the pericardium was cut into to reach the heart and then the vessels to that organ were cut so that the heart could be freed, even if not removed.

When I wrote that the cutting into the heart showed less skill than a car meat butcher, I meant that the process of heart removal, as described by Dr Bond, was only not only unfamiliar with his training, but also not a method used by butchers. This indicates that someone from that trade did not mutilate Mary Kelly.

Respectfully,
Richard.