Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Cogidubnus]

Not for lack of looking!

God do you know I thought I'd scoured the bloody "Ultimate" - been through it three or four times looking for it - and it's there all the time...thanks Cris - will bookmark it and read both it and your posting properly tomorrow, as it's late now, I'm getting tired, and probably wouldn't do either of them justice...

Thanks again and all the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

cuts

Hello Cris.

"None of the injuries inflicted on Mary Nichols indicated any medical skill or great anatomical knowledge."

Quite. But what about the "mutilations" (cuts) themselves? Isn't that what he meant by "skilful mutilations"?

Cheers.
LC

[Michael W Richards]

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.”

Thanks for posting the content Hunter, and it doesn't vary much from what Ive been suggesting. I never stated that they sought "surgeon" level competence, I said med student, butcher...etc. The short list given seems to indicate that they sought, as I said before, someone with skill and knowledge. Not a teacher but a student at some level.

This isn't about Bagster or Baxter, its about what the evidence reads like. We have a poster here who claims he has the relevant background to see the hand of someone at least semi-skilled. I know little to nothing about medical science, but I can read well, and the description of injuries leads me to believe that the man who killed the first 2 women sought to obtain female organs of the abdomen.

That's what the med authorities suggested, that's what a layman like me makes of the documentation.

Cheers

[caz]

Hi Trev,

You wrote regarding Prosector:

"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"

I'm afraid you don't read very carefully, because as a result of Prosector's posts and the evidence of Eddowes's injuries, I do not believe the killer could simply have cut and slashed his way to obtaining her uterus and left kidney. However, it seems that everyone but you accepts (and accepted at the time) that whoever the killer was, he did have sufficient light, time, dexterity and anatomical knowledge to extract those organs at the scene after cutting her throat, and deviated round the navel when making the vertical cut.

Love,

Caz
X

[Hunter]

Hello Cris.

"None of the injuries inflicted on Mary Nichols indicated any medical skill or great anatomical knowledge."

Quite. But what about the "mutilations" (cuts) themselves? Isn't that what he meant by "skilful mutilations"?

To be concise, Baxter had dug himself quite a hole, and as is often the case (even exemplified on these message boards here) he kept on digging in that hole despite the fact that the dirt was caving in around him. Nichols had a long deep cut down the abdomen, some apparently horizontal lacerations and either some cuts or stabs in the genital area. How does that display "skill" compared to what was done to later victims?

[curious4]

Further to my previous

"The abdominal walls were divided vertically in the middle line to within a quarter of an inch of the navel; the cut then took a horizontal course for 2 ½ in. to the right side; it then divided the navel on the left side - round it - and then made an incision parallel to the former horizontal incision, leaving the navel on a tongue of skin." (Times, 5th Oct. 1888)

I can't let this go, as a good part of this thread hangs on whether he/she cut round the navel and avoided cutting through it. Unfortunately can't sketch on my laptop, but tried it with pen and paper and it is possible to cut this way and leave the navel on a tongue of skin, although the tongue of skin and navel would have cuts in them. Annie Chapman's navel was on one of the the flaps of flesh cut from the abdomen, and presumably that was also the case with Mary Kelly. Poor Kate had absolutely no spare flesh on her, so could it be possible that Jack dithered a bit with his knife here, when he came to the navel, as he couldn't cut flaps from her abdomen?

Best wishes,
Cato - no sorry, C4

[lynn cates]

skill

Hello Cris. Thanks.

I think I can see where our thinking deviates. I completely concur with you about Baxter. Yes, he had a cornball theory and he would have been delighted to have propped it up.

I also agree about entry. Errata, long ago, pointed out that Kate's entry seemed to show more medical knowledge of procedure than Annie's.

Also, Baxter and Bagster seem to have made heavy weather out of the comparative skill levels shown in the organ removals. But that has never been my point. I understand Baxter's dictum about "skilful" vs "unskilful" to apply ONLY to the precision of the cuts themselves. In other words, Polly and Annie's knife wounds showed clean slicing, Kate's, signs of inexperience in cutting human tissue.

If that is NOT what he meant, then I don't see how mutilations may be either skillful or unskilful.

Cheers,
LC

[Hunter]

Thanks for posting the content Hunter, and it doesn't vary much from what Ive been suggesting. I never stated that they sought "surgeon" level competence, I said med student, butcher...etc. The short list given seems to indicate that they sought, as I said before, someone with skill and knowledge. Not a teacher but a student at some level.

The point is that Swanson's report indicates that the police were still looking for these types of individuals after the Eddowes murder.

This isn't about Bagster or Baxter, its about what the evidence reads like. We have a poster here who claims he has the relevant background to see the hand of someone at least semi-skilled. I know little to nothing about medical science, but I can read well, and the description of injuries leads me to believe that the man who killed the first 2 women sought to obtain female organs of the abdomen.
That's what the med authorities suggested, that's what a layman like me makes of the documentation.

But is is about Baxter, and once again you make the incorrect assumption that the medical authorities suggested that the man who killed the first 2 women sought to obtain female organs of the abdomen. It was Baxter who suggested that. Phillips never testified to that assumption, he only gave an opinion regarding the case he was involved in - the case of Annie Chapman. Obviously, whoever killed Catherine Eddowes sought to obtain organs too, because that's what he did. It just became apparent that it wasn't for anatomical specimens. All the Eddowes murder did was to show that Baxter's theory may be incorrect, and he had already come under fire from professional quarters just before the murders of Sept. 30. It was the reason for the questions posed to the medicos at that inquest and for the answers given by them.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Really enjoyed reading this thread.

It seems that those in a position of authority believed at the time, and today, that there was a degree of knowledge and skill utilised over and above that possessed by your average lay man, or even your average butcher.

What I'm not convinced about is the following:

Prosector opened with: "the murders displayed an exceptional level of skill and knowledge".

It's then argued that said skill and knowledge could have been gleaned from reading and/or watching.

Is this possible? Can such an exceptional level of skill/knowledge be attained without practice in any field?

[The Good Michael]

It's then argued that said skill and knowledge could have been gleaned from reading and/or watching.

Is this possible? Can such an exceptional level of skill/knowledge be attained without practice in any field?

Mac,

What about someone who read and studied about it, but practiced only on animals until the Ripper murders? Would you consider the mutilation of animals, which seems to be an early activity that connects many serial killers, as experience enough (combined with reading), to be able to do what JTR did? I'm a 'where there's a will there's a way' guy, and I've done many things in my life in which my only information on how to do it was from books.

as my mind is drifting here...as a teacher, I've studied the theory of multiple intelligences that states there are several ways of learning and that individuals learn differently. Some are audio learners, some verbal, some physical (hands-on) and others. I learn best by reading and then doing. I always have learned best that way, an independent learning style I guess. What about JTR?

Mike

[caz]

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.

Hi Mike,

I would refer you to Prosector's initial post regarding Chapman and Eddowes. It may be wrong of me, but I can't help feeling more comfortable with his analysis than with those involving copycat organ removers possessing different skill/knowledge levels.

Mary was not, by any stretch of the imagination, 'simply cut up', Mike. The internal organs, including kidneys, liver and uterus were removed and placed around the body, and see again what Prosector had to say about the way the heart was extracted. How does anyone get to judge the killer's 'goal or objective' but the killer himself? How can anyone reasonably conclude that Eddowes's killer only took away her uterus and kidney in a bid to match what another killer did to Chapman, and that Kelly's killer only took out all those organs in a bid to match what was done to Chapman and Eddowes? You are presumably not suggesting some game of one-upmanship between three separate mutilating organ harvesters, so why would your copycats have done so much more each time than the man they were supposed to be impersonating?

You couldn't sell this stuff as a tv drama, which is saying something these days.

Love,

Caz
X

[The Good Michael]

Mary was not, by any stretch of the imagination,'simply cut up', Mike. The internal organs, including kidneys, liver and uterus were removed and placed around the body, and see again what Prosector had to say about the way the heart was extracted. How does anyone get to judge the killer's 'goal or objective' but the killer himself? How can anyone reasonably conclude that Eddowes's killer only took away her uterus and kidney in a bid to match what another killer did to Chapman, and that Kelly's killer only took out all those organs in a bid to match what was done to Chapman and Eddowes? You are presumably not suggesting some game of one-upmanship between three separate mutilating organ harvesters, so why would your copycats have done so much more each time than the man they were supposed to be impersonating?

far more experience was shown on Eddowes and then even more on Kelly than on the others. I should think Michael's argument should be more like: If the same guy did it, why was he better at it each time. Of course there's a simple answer for that.

Mike

[Hunter]

Also, Baxter and Bagster seem to have made heavy weather out of the comparative skill levels shown in the organ removals. But that has never been my point. I understand Baxter's dictum about "skilful" vs "unskilful" to apply ONLY to the precision of the cuts themselves. In other words, Polly and Annie's knife wounds showed clean slicing, Kate's, signs of inexperience in cutting human tissue.

If that is NOT what he meant, then I don't see how mutilations may be either skillful or unskilful.

Unfortunately, we have no sketches or detailed descriptions of the actual cuts made on Nichols or Chapman, just a general description and, in Chapman's case, where various parts were found. We do know that Baxter had a theory that came under harsh scrutiny and he hunkered down to defend it when evidence in a subsequent murder showed otherwise. He had gone from being an objective representative of justice to a partisan participant in a debate. He considers Stride as a possible victim of the same hand as the previous, despite Phillips' testimony and despite there being no abdominal mutilations, while he determines that Eddowes was possibly killed by an imitator, even though there were mutilations and organs extracted. And then his reasoning for including Stride could equally be applied to Eddowes. That's what happens when one gets married to a theory that might be on shaky ground.... ain't that right, Trevor?

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"Unfortunately, we have no sketches or detailed descriptions of the actual cuts made on Nichols or Chapman, just a general description and, in Chapman's case, where various parts were found."

Absolutely. Wish that Bagster's notes would turn up.

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

For the benefit of anyone that hasn't had both hands inside a human abdomen before, simply getting at either the kidney or the uterus is incredibly difficult. You might know roughly where they are but the problem is you have a mass of slippery, writhing intestines in the way and as much as you try to push them aside, the more they flop back into the middle and down into the pelvis which is where you need to be if you wish to get at the uterus.

What you have to do is a manoeuvre known to surgeons, anatomists and pathologists as mobilisation of the small bowel. This involves making a slit in the root of the mesentery which lies behind the bowels and this then enables you to lift the small intestines out of the abdomen and gives you a clearer field. Jack did this in the case of Chapman and Eddowes (hence the bowels being draped over the right shoulders). Dividing the root of the mesentery single handed is very difficult since you are operating one handed and blind. Usually an assistant wound be using both hands to retract the guts so that the operator can get a clearer view of it.

Well worth repeating, I think, for those arguing that Chapman and Eddowes were done in by two independent organ harvesting mutilators with no more anatomical knowledge than the average butcher.

Love,

Caz
X