Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Errata]

I see. The victims are posed the same way a field dresser would pose a deer. If he was a hunter could he have learned the specifics of the removing. The human uterus from the torsos?

I don't think so. The uterus is a firm fist sized ball below a squishy fist sized ball and above an either firm or squishy elongated fist sized thing. About the same size as a kidney, spleen, any number of other things. And the human uterus is a lot lower down than the average mammalian uterus, with shorter vaginal canal. And he couldn't see in the cavity, so he would be finding it by feel. So he either knew exactly where it was, or he knew exactly how to find it without knowing exactly where it was. And I can only think of one way of doing that.

I think any similarity to a field dressing pose is that they were on their backs.

[RockySullivan]

I'm really valuing your input about the knives errata. I think the problem with the ripper case is that in all the time that's passed everyone without fail has missed the obvious. How many years went by before someone realized how suspicious Lechmere & Hutch actually are? I'm not saying either are the killer but it's obvious they needed to be looked at more closely. Same goes with the knives, while I am a novice, I have never once seen anyone mention how dull the knife would be after the near decapitations. Seems like a pretty important point. Same with torsos. All these years and all we've got is sickert an prince eddy(I know all of y'all have made some contributions to this case thru out the years, much of it ignored by the mainstream for ridiculous sensational theories I'm sure) This seems like stuff that should've been focused on at the time. Captain Hindsight i know.

[RockySullivan]

Most mammals have uteruses in roughly the same place, but they do not remotely resemble a human uterus. Most mammals have a forked uterus, with two horns resembling either an anchor or sheep horns. This structure accommodates litters. Because of the nipple rule we know that the only mammals that are not designed to have litters are primates. So it's us and monkeys, and most people haven't seen the inside of a monkey either. Anyone operating under the assumption that a human is built like a sheep is never going to find the uterus. Not just by looking. So the killer did not find the uterus based on familiarity with animal anatomy. He did it the old fashioned way.

I see. The victims are posed the same way a field dresser would pose a deer. If he was a hunter could he have learned the specifics of the removing. The human uterus from the torsos?

[Errata]

Are there any animals who have a similar enough anatomy that the ripper could learn to remove a humans kidney, uterus so quickly with no light?

Most mammals have uteruses in roughly the same place, but they do not remotely resemble a human uterus. Most mammals have a forked uterus, with two horns resembling either an anchor or sheep horns. This structure accommodates litters. Because of the nipple rule we know that the only mammals that are not designed to have litters are primates. So it's us and monkeys, and most people haven't seen the inside of a monkey either. Anyone operating under the assumption that a human is built like a sheep is never going to find the uterus. Not just by looking. So the killer did not find the uterus based on familiarity with animal anatomy. He did it the old fashioned way.

[Simon Owen]

A hunter also is the only one I can imagine being able to work that fast in the dark. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field..._%28hunting%29
Take a look at the first two pictures on the Wikipedia article for field dressing. By golly if I doesn't look exactly like the ripper murders! I mean exactly! I think the ripper was a deer hunter.


"First an incision is made around the anus so that it moves freely from the rest of the carcass. Then a cut is made from that incision to the breast plate to allow the stomach and intestines to be carefully removed. Now the anus can be removed by pulling it down or using a specialized tool called a butt-out."

I remember reading details of one description possibly eddowes and it sounded exactly like this. sliced up from rectum to breastplate.

"...Such a knowledge might be possessed by someone in the habit of cutting up animals." - Dr Frederick Gordon Brown. Brown also thought the cuts made to Eddowes's face were butchers' cuts.

[Hunter]

Lol...

[RockySullivan]

A hunter also is the only one I can imagine being able to work that fast in the dark. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field..._%28hunting%29
Take a look at the first two pictures on the Wikipedia article for field dressing. By golly if I doesn't look exactly like the ripper murders! I mean exactly! I think the ripper was a deer hunter.


"First an incision is made around the anus so that it moves freely from the rest of the carcass. Then a cut is made from that incision to the breast plate to allow the stomach and intestines to be carefully removed. Now the anus can be removed by pulling it down or using a specialized tool called a butt-out."

I remember reading details of one description possibly eddowes and it sounded exactly like this. sliced up from rectum to breastplate.

[RockySullivan]

Are there any animals who have a similar enough anatomy that the ripper could learn to remove a humans kidney, uterus so quickly with no light? That's why in was thinking hunter as they immediately after murdering an animal the hunter "dresses" which I assume means slices open the gut and pulls out the intestines? A deer seems like they could have a similar anatomy to a human. The "deerstalker" sighting for instance could point to a hunter couldn't it. What kind of knives would a hunter use and what time of person (beside prince eddy) might be a hunter in whitechapel. I don't believe the victims were random & just unluckily the ripper happened upon them. I think the ripper stalked them the way a hunter would his prey. I think the MO was similar to a hunter and maybe the ripper was an expert. I see signs of this in the killing with the stalking and the mutilations, the throat cut. It's just a theory but it seems more likely than a butcher or a doctor because a hunter has the added advantage of the skill in stalking a victim that dr. Butcher lacks.

[Rosella]

Serial killers have been known to torture and mutilate animals in their childhood and youth. Hearts, kidneys could be removed. Plus, taxidermists, for example, remove inner organs. Butchers certainly do.

[Errata]

Perhaps Errata might know if a single scalpel would stay sharp through the mutilations of Mary Kelly.

I don't know honestly. My last surgery was far less extensive, involved more potential bone contact, and about half a dozen scalpels were used. Surgical teams don't let scalpels get even a little dull.

I know an exacto blade dulls beyond use cutting a two inch stack of paper in half. I have no idea how that translates to human bits.

It's possible. I don't think terribly likely, and never mind I know from experience that running around with a scalpel is fraught with its own perils. Like stabbing yourself in the thigh a ton. And I had an exacto once cut through my pocket to escape.

[RockySullivan]

JTR was obviously used to using knives. How? Was it his trade --work as a butcher, horse slaughterer, hunter, fish filliter, cook or chef, taxidermist are obvious picks?
Of course, he could have been a postman or gas fitter or car man etc who simply collected knives and was facinated by them, becoming skilled as a result of his hobby.
However, surely it's more likely that he would have used knives for hours every day as part of his job?

Right and a job that would give him practice removing abdominal organs? Does that job exist or did he practice on his own? How could he practice on his own? A riddle indeed

[Rosella]

JTR was obviously used to using knives. How? Was it his trade --work as a butcher, horse slaughterer, hunter, fish filliter, cook or chef, taxidermist are obvious picks?
Of course, he could have been a postman or gas fitter or car man etc who simply collected knives and was facinated by them, becoming skilled as a result of his hobby.
However, surely it's more likely that he would have used knives for hours every day as part of his job?

[RockySullivan]

Wear and tear of the blade has been discussed before, but a killer with an assortment of knives is not a popular suggestion. And, there is something morbidly humorous about a killer standing over his victim sharpening his knife with a butchers steel.

This issue of the knife dulling after some use might have been considered by a surgeon like Dr. Phillips, or Bond, especially with respect to Mary Kelly's extensive mutilations.
Perhaps Errata might know if a single scalpel would stay sharp through the mutilations of Mary Kelly.

I understand it's not a popular theory, and while I know nothing about knives the deep throat cuts do logically sound like they would dull the blade too much for the mutilations.

[Wickerman]

Wow if every thing you've said is accurate about the knives becoming too dull, how is that no one else picked up on this? Maybe they have but I've never read it. You'd think the police at the time would realize that one knife would become too dull? Or has everyone whose every thought about this case in anyway just known as little about knives and cutting bodies as me? Surely someone at the time must've picked up on this if it's true?

Wear and tear of the blade has been discussed before, but a killer with an assortment of knives is not a popular suggestion. And, there is something morbidly humorous about a killer standing over his victim sharpening his knife with a butchers steel.

This issue of the knife dulling after some use might have been considered by a surgeon like Dr. Phillips, or Bond, especially with respect to Mary Kelly's extensive mutilations.
Perhaps Errata might know if a single scalpel would stay sharp through the mutilations of Mary Kelly.

[RockySullivan]

Wow if every thing you've said is accurate about the knives becoming too dull, how is that no one else picked up on this? Maybe they have but I've never read it. You'd think the police at the time would realize that one knife would become too dull? Or has everyone whose every thought about this case in anyway just known as little about knives and cutting bodies as me? Surely someone at the time must've picked up on this if it's true?