Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[curious4]

Confused

Hello all,

Regarding the navel cuts, I read this in the Sourcebook: "the cut then took a horizontal course for 21/2 inches to the right side; it then DIVIDED the navel on the left side - round it - and made a incision parallel to the former horizontal incision, leaving the navel on a tongue of skin". Does this mean he did cut through the navel, is it a misprint, or is there a comma missing?

As far as I can see, this is taken from the Inquest reports filed in the Corporation of London Records Office.

Best wishes,
C4

[The Good Michael]

Hello all,

Regarding the navel cuts, I read this in the Sourcebook: "the cut then took a horizontal course for 21/2 inches to the right side; it then DIVIDED the navel on the left side - round it - and made a incision parallel to the former horizontal incision, leaving the navel on a tongue of skin". Does this mean he did cut through the navel, is it a misprint, or is there a comma missing?

As far as I can see, this is taken from the Inquest reports filed in the Corporation of London Records Office.

I think it means that the navel was cut around and left on a flap of skin looking like a peninsula. Seriously.

Mike

[Wickerman]

The umbilicus incision could have been made by whoever removed the organs at the mortuary. Remember there was no such incision made on Chapman or Nicholls.

If the abdomen was opened later at the mortuary, where did the length of intestine come from beside her body?

[curious4]

Settled

I think it means that the navel was cut around and left on a flap of skin looking like a peninsula. Seriously.

Mike

That would just about settle it, then, Michael. Where would we be without your conventional wisdom!

Cheers,
C4

[The Good Michael]

That would just about settle it, then, Michael. Where would we be without your conventional wisdom!

Cheers,
C4

I wasn't joking.

Mike

[curious4]

That would just about settle it, then, Michael. Where would we be without your conventional wisdom!

Cheers,
C4

Nor me! Honest!

C4

[caz]

Hi Caz

So now you are inferring that the medical skill was even more enhanced by the navel incision and the surgical removal of the organs.

No I'm not, Trev. I do not infer that much 'medical skill' was in evidence here, nor that the organs were removed 'surgically' as such. As Prosector keeps reminding us, very few skilled surgeons ever opened living abdomens in 1888, never mind removed organs from them, and this was no skilled surgeon in any case. Our killer need only have observed the practice (or assisted with the practice) of deviating to the right of the old belly button when cutting into a corpse to make the sewing up afterwards easier.

I have to say that as this progresses it becomes even more farcical to suggest the killer removed these organs at the crime scene in 5 mins or less and carried out a precise incision around the abdomen.

You seem to be stuck in your groove of proven surgical skill, Trev, which nobody as far as I am aware is inferring but you. You see a 'precise incision', while I just see an automatic swerve of the knife to avoid the navel. I should have thought it would have been obvious to a backward earwig if the bodies had arrived in each mortuary intact and then been 'operated on' deliberately, expertly and in good light, by someone suitably qualified to whip out the respective organs. It's fantasy and there is no evidence to suggest any such thing.

And to remove a uterus there would be no need to remove the intestines someone with medical knowledge would have known that

The killer didn't need to do any of this stuff, but did it anyway. He didn't need to mutilate a face to extract a kidney or a heart, but he did it - twice. Read what Prosector said in his very first post about what the killer had to do to get at the left kidney without ending up in a hellish mess of foul liquid and almost certainly failing to obtain his takeaway.

It makes no sense to suggest that Eddowes still had her uterus and both kidneys when her killer left Mitre Square.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

If the abdomen was opened later at the mortuary, where did the length of intestine come from beside her body?

I think you are forgetting about the other abdominal wounds which were inflicted upon her upon her which clearly pierced the abdominal lining and when that happens intestines will recoil outwards. (see attached photo) the piece you refer to could quite easily have got cut in the frenzied process by the killer

and whilst on the subject of a frenzied attack are we expected to believe that the killer carries out a frenzied attack on Eddowes then suddenly calms down to state where he is cool and calm and able to carry out these precise incisions and remove these organs with some care in super fast time.

If you believe that then you need a reality check because if the killer could not have done all of that in the time window then he could not have removed the organs end of story

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Caz

No I'm not, Trev. I do not infer that much 'medical skill' was in evidence here, nor that the organs were removed 'surgically' as such. As Prosector keeps reminding us, very few skilled surgeons ever opened living abdomens in 1888, never mind removed organs from them, and this was no skilled surgeon in any case. Our killer need only have observed the practice (or assisted with the practice) of deviating to the right of the old belly button when cutting into a corpse to make the sewing up afterwards easier.

Well Dr Brown suggests the contrary

You seem to be stuck in your groove of proven surgical skill, Trev, which nobody as far as I am aware is inferring but you. You see a 'precise incision', while I just see an automatic swerve of the knife to avoid the navel. I should have thought it would have been obvious to a backward earwig if the bodies had arrived in each mortuary intact and then been 'operated on' deliberately, expertly and in good light, by someone suitably qualified to whip out the respective organs. It's fantasy and there is no evidence to suggest any such thing.

But the bodies didn't arrive intact the abdomens were ripper open by the killer thus making it easy for someone to access the abdomen. The navel incision is consistent with the post mortem room.


The killer didn't need to do any of this stuff, but did it anyway. He didn't need to mutilate a face to extract a kidney or a heart, but he did it - twice. Read what Prosector said in his very first post about what the killer had to do to get at the left kidney without ending up in a hellish mess of foul liquid and almost certainly failing to obtain his takeaway.

Yes he confirms what I have been saying from day one the killer could not have obtained these organs through the cut and slash procedure you and others seem to want to put forward.

It makes no sense to suggest that Eddowes still had her uterus and both kidneys when her killer left Mitre Square.

Well out of all the victims putting Kelly aside the only two who had organs were removed were Eddowes and Chapman and they were only two who had their abdomens ripped open to the point of giving easy access to someone.

If any of the others had their organs removed at the mortuary it would have been discovered but the doctors in those two murders did not examine the bodies in great detail at the scene and certainly cannot say that the organs were present. Its only posters like you that are propping that theory up

As I said previous with regards to Nicholls the doctor who attended the crime scene never looked at the body in detail because he didn't spot the abdominal mutilations they were only brought to his attention later on so don't lets give all these doctors the credit they are being given for professionalism.

After the Chapman murder I would have expected the doctors to have examined Eddowes in more detail than they did and certainly not left the post mortem for 12 hours in a murder case.
Love,

Caz
X

[Hunter]

When people can't even make a cognizant analysis of the evidence that does exist and propose theories before they even have a basic knowledge of the subject, and when evidence shows the folly of their theories and yet they still persist in promulgating them... then there's no hope for this field called Ripperology. Because its not a field...

It is a swamp.

And what could have been an enlightening thread has thus descended into a quagmire full of refuse.

And now I have to scroll across to even read a complete post.

[Trevor Marriott]

When people can't even make a cognizant analysis of the evidence that does exist and propose theories before they even have a basic knowledge of the subject, and when evidence shows the folly of their theories and yet they still persist in promulgating them... then there's no hope for this field called Ripperology. Because its not a field...

It is a swamp.

And what could have been an enlightening thread has thus descended into a quagmire full of refuse.

And now I have to scroll across to even read a complete post.

You are so right for far to long now people have had their heads in the sand on this organ removal issue and the more it gets discussed on here the more the reality of it all kicks in but those heads will never surface because they don't want the old theory to vanish.

I am not going to argue it anymore its becoming boring and tiresome keep trying to put plausible explanations to those who don't want to listen or want to accept anything new,

I will leave it for each and every individual around the world interested in this case to assess and evaluate for themselves the facts and make their own minds up.

Because we simply do not know the answer but what we can do in coming to a sensible conclusion is to weigh up the facts for and against, and in my professional opinion those facts suggest the killer could not have removed those organs given the knife work as described, the degree of anatomical knowledge required and the time available to him. My opinion is corroborated by medical experts so I will stick with them as against the opinions of the armchair surgeons on here.

[Cogidubnus]

Intrigued...

Yes, Mike, the police did solicit information on medical students following the murder of Annie Chapman based on a report submitted to them by H Division Surgeon Bagster Phillips. His was the only medical opinion they had on that murder. That would change. And even after the 'double event' Abberline was still pursuing that line, even though the list of possible suspects had expanded to include "a hunter, a butcher, a slaughterman, as well as a student in surgery or a properly qualified surgeon." And there's evidence that Phillips' opinion was not what many seem to believe. As mentioned by me in a previous post, Swanson's Nov. 6 HO report sheds some light on it. You may want to read it when you get a chance.

Hi Hunter...I've been trying to find that 6th November Swanson report ever since you first mentioned it, and have to confess I've come up blank...Is it quoted verbatim in any of the available literature?

All the best

Dave

[Michael W Richards]

Im just catching up, but I will be interested in that report as well. Im not sure if its one Ive read yet, Ill check my drive and see if I have a copy. Like Ive sorted out over 100 meg that well..

Caz,

For once I can see from your perspective although I do not agree with the analysis that has been presented. If he sought the kidney, then I agree it was somewhat difficult considering the circumstances. I dont believe he did seek out a specific organ myself, I tend to side with the idea that the organ removal was to meld this murder in with Annies by killer. Also the navel circumventing....odd and not typical, and the nose,...if he intended to cut off her nose and accidentally caused those "chevron" marks under Kates eyes..not very skillful handling of a knife. And why cut a 2 foot section of bowel containing excrement? As for Mary, she is simply cut up, I think in this instance I have to agree with Bond, although I do not take his opinion on dead women he did not see as happily. There is no goal or objective other than to deface the corpse...taking an organ may again be an attempt to match this murder by the murderers fancy.

Cheers

[Simon Wood]

Hi Dave,

Swanson's 6th November 1888 report is hiding in plain sight.

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

Hi Dave,

It is in Evans and Skinner's the Ultimate (which is now available on Kindle)... Page 208, and is part of Chief Inspector Donald Swanson's Home Office report on the facts known by the Met police regarding the murder in Mitre Square and the Graffiti in Goulston St.
This is the relevant passage regarding medical evidence pertaining to the murderer:

The surgeon, Dr. Brown, called by the City Police, and Dr. Phillips called by the Metropolitan Police in the cases of Hanbury Street and Berner St. having made a post-mortem of the body reported that there were missing the left kidney and the uterus, and that the mutilation so far gave no evidence of anatomical knowledge in the sense that it evidenced the hand of a qualified surgeon, so that the Police could narrow their enquiries into certain classes of persons. On the other hand, as in the Metropolitan Police cases, the medical evidence shewed that the murder could have been committed by a person who had been a hunter, a butcher, a slaughterman, as well as a student in surgery or a properly qualified surgeon.

In other words, the police had never limited their search for suspects based on "medical skill" or even familiarity with the dissecting room. And Phillips had never suggested that inquiries should be limited to such. That was Wynne Baxter's theory. And that seems to be where many people get confused.

That some sort of anatomical knowledge was displayed in both the Chapman and Eddowes murders only meant to these physicians that the categories specified by Swanson's report have been included to cover anyone possibly possessing that knowledge, but not limited to what Wynne Baxter had previously suggested.

Naturally, Baxter wasn't going to admit that he may have been wrong. He had already come under intense criticism from the medical profession just the day before the murders of Sept. 30, and this new evidence placed his credibility, and possibly his job, in jeopardy. He was more cautious in the way he conducted the Stride murder inquest by not promoting any new theories or chastising the police. But in his summary at that inquest, he defended his position by saying this:

In the absence of motive, the age and class of woman selected as victim, and the place and time of the crime, there was a similarity between this case and those mysteries which had recently occurred in that neighbourhood. There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square - possibly the work of an imitator; but there had been the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection, which, unfortunately for the peace of the inhabitants and trade of the neighbourhood, had hitherto been only too successskilful.

This statement clearly shows that while Wynne Baxter considered the Stride murder to have been possibly perpetrated by the same hand as the previous murders, he believed the murder of Catherine Eddowes might have been that of an imitator. His reasoning was based upon what he considered the ‘unskilful injuries’ in this instance as opposed to the skillful ones perpetrated on the victims in Buck’s Row and Hanbury Street. Whether Baxter reached these conclusions on his own or was influenced by one of the other medicos is not known, but it is unsound reasoning. None of the injuries inflicted on Mary Nichols indicated any medical skill or great anatomical knowledge. His conclusions were based entirely upon his theory that the perpetrator was interrupted or hindered to some degree from carrying out his task, which was later completed at No. 29 Hanbury Street.

The truth is that the motive for each of these murders was unknown. Because the cervix of Catherine Eddowes was not extracted along with the uterus, it was apparent that the organ was useless for the motive Wynne Baxter had proposed for the Chapman murder. But rather than admit to an incorrect conclusion about the Chapman murder, Baxter chose to separate his theory about the motive in Annie Chapman’s death from the evidence presented at the Eddowes inquest. While Dr. Phillips did testify that he thought the murderer was after Annie Chapman’s uterus and that great anatomical knowledge was indicated, Phillips never testified that great medical skill was apparent. Baxter added that concept. Furthermore, Baxter seemed to not consider the testimony of Dr. Gordon Brown, which was, essentially the same as Phillips’ opinion about the Chapman case. The statement by Chief Inspector Swanson relates the opinions of both Brown and Phillips, and indicates a belief that the murderer in both the Chapman and Eddowes cases could have been a ‘hunter, a butcher, a slaughterman, as well as a student in surgery or a properly qualified surgeon.’

Indeed, the same logic that Baxter used in speculating as to a possible connection between the Stride murder and those of Nichols and Chapman could equally be applied in the Eddowes case as well — there was an absence of motive; the age and class of the victims were the same; the place and time of the crime were in proximity to the others, and “the same skill exhibited in the way in which the victim had been entrapped, and the injuries inflicted, so as to cause instant death and prevent blood from soiling the operator, and the same daring defiance of immediate detection.”