Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Hunter]

I don't think any definition of who in particular committed these murders can ever be determined, but maybe some basic understanding of events and what transpired at the time can be reached. As far as I'm concerned, that is necessary first; take a fresh look without predetermining the outcome.

[Errata]

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.

Cheers,
LC

I did?

I mean, I did!

But I would point out that a: in Kate's case there was a bizarre mix of skilled and unskilled (meaning professional) methods. and b: if you look at the difference between Nichols and Chapman, this guy has a ludicrously high learning curve. Like it's almost a vertical line.

[lynn cates]

mix

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"Learning curve," I presume, referring to body cavity entry?

Tell me, could an otherwise maladept, who had been following Annie's inquest, have learned such an entry procedure by asking? If yes, could that explain the curious mix of skilful and unskilful?

Cheers.
LC

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Trevor

Just noticed the pic from post# 398, I believe. What, where does that pic come from? Thanks.

[Cogidubnus]

Hello Hunter

I've now had the chance to read the 6th November report and the subsequent Casebook postings. I have to say that I concur with what you're saying.

My take is that the doctors, either singly or together, probably did get at Baxter - I think by this time they were getting alarmed at the shift in emphasis from Leather Apron towards "medical knowledge", and a certain degree of professional reticence was indicated...

And as you suggest, Baxter wouldn't take much getting at - he was somewhat in the cack and I suspect increasingly needed to mind his back...

And it's noticeable how the 6th November report suggests it's the Police who are pushing back and insisting an open mind is kept on the degree of either anatomical or medical knowledge which would be required

All the best

Dave

[Prosector]

I think a lot of people are missing the point. The victims were all dead before the abdominal operations took place. So called surgical skill as far as the abdominal mutilations took place are not relevant to how they died. As a matter of fact I believe that Jack's main skill lay in how he managed to render them unconscious before he started the dissection. I do not believe that he strangled them (compressed the trachea long enough for unconsciousness to take place - about 2 -3 minutes). I believe that he used carotid pressure to cut off the circulation to the brain (needs a high degree of anatomical knowledge) which causes almost instantaneous loss of consciousness. The subclavicular and supramandibular bruising exactly matches that. No signs of conventional strangulation (laryngeal fractures or bruising) were found.

Prosector

[Michael W Richards]

I think a lot of people are missing a few points Prosector...

What seems to fascinate people about this question is the kind of cuts that were made, skilful or unskilled,..what eludes many is that the overall objective in the murder of Annie Chapman, which can be gleaned by reviewing what he did before he decided to leave, was to obtain an organ from her abdomen. Im not speculating like Baxter as to why he sought an organ of that region, Im just saying that after he killed Annie he cut her open, took a few things, and left. There was a beginning and an end. A goal. This murder was not a case of the killer simply continuing to cut away organs and flesh until he tired himself like in room 13, and this wasnt a case where the organ acquired was essentially located in her lower back like Kates, or in her chest cavity, like Marys. The cuts made were to kill, to open, and to cut free. And the object of the killers interest was in the abdomen.

In Kates case we have cuts that deface, cuts to section off a piece of colon which he tucks between her body and arm, and cuts to her apron. In Marys case we have numerous examples of organ extractions that were placed about the body, not for the killer to take, and we have angry facial wounds, de-fleshed bone on her right thigh, and a final posing of the corpse after the fact....(this is evident by the fact her left arm was placed over an empty midsection).

Even if the kills were equally invasive and equally skilled or unskilled, the objective of the mutilations would be unclear in all but Annies murder. I personally believe that Pollys wounds indicate that the same man that will kill Annie had at her but was unable, due to being in an open ended street, to find enough privacy for the task. Thats why Annie is killed off the street.

Cheers

[Abby Normal]

I think a lot of people are missing the point. The victims were all dead before the abdominal operations took place. So called surgical skill as far as the abdominal mutilations took place are not relevant to how they died. As a matter of fact I believe that Jack's main skill lay in how he managed to render them unconscious before he started the dissection. I do not believe that he strangled them (compressed the trachea long enough for unconsciousness to take place - about 2 -3 minutes). I believe that he used carotid pressure to cut off the circulation to the brain (needs a high degree of anatomical knowledge) which causes almost instantaneous loss of consciousness. The subclavicular and supramandibular bruising exactly matches that. No signs of conventional strangulation (laryngeal fractures or bruising) were found.

Prosector

Absolutely Prosector
As a long time follower and practitioner of wrestling/MMA, I have always Beleived the ripper used what we call a blood choke. Their are several of them used in MMA and like you say they can knock you out in seconds. One of the more common ones is called a rear naked choke and it basically a head lock from behind with the arms around the neck that cuts off the blood at the neck arteries.

I have always thought it was a strong possibility the ripper rendered his victims unconscious from behind in this manner.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think a lot of people are missing the point. The victims were all dead before the abdominal operations took place. So called surgical skill as far as the abdominal mutilations took place are not relevant to how they died. As a matter of fact I believe that Jack's main skill lay in how he managed to render them unconscious before he started the dissection. I do not believe that he strangled them (compressed the trachea long enough for unconsciousness to take place - about 2 -3 minutes). I believe that he used carotid pressure to cut off the circulation to the brain (needs a high degree of anatomical knowledge) which causes almost instantaneous loss of consciousness. The subclavicular and supramandibular bruising exactly matches that. No signs of conventional strangulation (laryngeal fractures or bruising) were found.

Prosector

Hi
Are you now asking us to believe that in addition to all of what we know he did and in order to do all of this he was able to perform a sleeper hold on the victim. Now that takes two hands and a good deal of knowledge to get that right does it not. I bet there are not many people in this day and age who could do that let alone in 1888 or even know about such a procedure in 1888. And of course all of this is adding even more time he spent with the victim.

Besides why waist valuable time trying to render someone unconscious when you are in possession of a long sharp knife.

Dr Brown suggested the throat was cut first and death was instantaneous. He suggests that the knife went in severing the windpipe and was then drawn across. That shows to me the killer attacked from behind and shows a degree of skill in knowing how to kill from behind using a knife.

Correct me if I am wrong but did you not suggest that the killer had a design on the organs if that be the case would you care to explain why the killer stabbed her at least 4 times through her clothing in the abdominal region. Something which would damage any organs he might be seeking, and by doing that would cause blood seepage into the abdomen making it even more difficult to locate, grip and remove these organs in the dark with a 6 inch knife.

If he wanted organs why not simply cut the throat and then open up the body and remove the organs

Next time you are operating perhaps you might want to try removing a kidney using a 6 inch victorian knife and see how difficult it is under normal conditions. See attached a blood filled abdomen picture with a 6 inch Victorian surgeons knife to show the difficulty which many on here do not fully appreciate.

One other issue is that the killer obviously carried out a frenzied attack on Eddowes and was he lucky when removing the uterus not to damage her bladder. Now with all the wounds inflicted in the dark and all the effort in removing the uterus he managed to avoid damaging the bladder now even you must find that an amazing feat of surgical dexterity given the light and the state of the body, Even Dr Browns colleague who performed the same operation didn't do it without damaging the bladder on his body.

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

"Learning curve," I presume, referring to body cavity entry?

Tell me, could an otherwise maladept, who had been following Annie's inquest, have learned such an entry procedure by asking? If yes, could that explain the curious mix of skilful and unskilful?

Cheers.
LC

Not really. The mixture of skill and lack of skill happens within the same event. For example, removing the uterus. With Chapman he removed the entire uterus, but also took some of the bladder. Which makes sense if you are trying to be super careful. With Eddowes, he didn't cut below the cervix (leaving some of the uterus), but he also didn't remove any parts of the bladder. And evidently he didn't even put enough pressure on the bladder to evacuate it. So he isolated the uterus with much greater skill, but then he didn't actually extract it with greater skill. Which is weird.

And for a while, (and I'm still not convinced I'm wrong here) I though it was because he was eating the uterus. And I imagine chewing through a cervix is worse than chewing through a heart. So when he took another uterus he left the cervix because he wasn't going to eat it, and why take time trying to make sure you get it all. In which case it would be a more skilled extraction, given his intentions. It's sort of like butchering a small fish. It always looks like a hack job no matter how good you are because of all the things you aren't interested in getting from the fish.

And this is all about intention. I mean, if he just pulled out these organs to terrify people and then threw them in the Thames, job well done. Taking organs for specimens doesn't fly with me because its a guy going through a lot of trouble to take out an organ in such a way that it is useless as a specimen. So that guy clearly muffed the whole thing. If it's some sort of ritual (emotional, not religious) or emotionally driven act based on something from this guys past, or some trauma, he would be as successful as he thought he was, no matter how we feel about it.

And we may be looking at a huge gap between skill and knowledge. This guy is very skilled with a knife, but not the knife he is using for these murders. A brilliant surgeon does not make a brilliant swordsman. So that's part of the skill/lack of skill issue. But for all we know he may be quite knowledgeable about anatomy, and never cut into anything bigger than a pork chop in his life. The only useful comparison between this killer and a surgeon comes from people falling back on what they know during times of great stress. These murders would never look like surgery. Even if the world's greatest surgeon committed them. Anymore than a Monet painting looks like Monet's grocery list. But there might be a hint or two in the shape of the letters, if we squint hard enough.

[Errata]

Geez Trevor... warn a girl why don't you? Some of us have other people in the house wandering around who really don't want to see that, never mind that I was in the middle of a perfectly good roast beef sandwich that is now living in another room. The picture was not entirely necessary, and by the way, in no century is that a six inch knife. Knife measurement includes the hilt. Otherwise it is stipulated as a six inch blade.

[lynn cates]

protruding tongue

Hello Prosector.

"I do not believe that he strangled them (compressed the trachea long enough for unconsciousness to take place - about 2 -3 minutes)."

Then how account for Annie's protruding tongue?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

different

Hello Errata. Thanks.

Of course, I have a quite different explanation for the differences in Annie and Kate.

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

I think a lot of people are missing the point. The victims were all dead before the abdominal operations took place. So called surgical skill as far as the abdominal mutilations took place are not relevant to how they died. As a matter of fact I believe that Jack's main skill lay in how he managed to render them unconscious before he started the dissection. I do not believe that he strangled them (compressed the trachea long enough for unconsciousness to take place - about 2 -3 minutes). I believe that he used carotid pressure to cut off the circulation to the brain (needs a high degree of anatomical knowledge) which causes almost instantaneous loss of consciousness. The subclavicular and supramandibular bruising exactly matches that. No signs of conventional strangulation (laryngeal fractures or bruising) were found.

Prosector

Hi Prosector.

I notice you do not describe precisely how you see the killer applying this hold.

No evidence of bruises around the neck suggesting the application of hands, so perhaps you envisage the killer attacking the victim from the rear and applying, what we call a 'sleeper-hold' where the pressure is applied on either side of the neck by the forearm & bicep muscles of the killers arm being hooked around the neck.

This is all very effective when a bare neck is exposed to a bare arm, as we see in MMA wrestling, but here on the streets of Whitechapel these women had thick clothing, stiff collars, scarfs, and the killer, presumably, wearing a top coat or as some describe a Morning-coat.

All this clothing softens the pressure and delays the effect of the grip.
In principal the idea has merit, in practical application it leaves much to be desired.

How the killer rendered the victims unconscious has been a contentious issue for many years here on Casebook, there is no satisfactory solution. However, if you read Dr Brownfields proposal in Dec. 1888, that the killer may have used a cord, or garrott, to render them swiftly & silently unconscious then you may choose to reconsider. Brownfield also suggested that the cuts around the throat destroyed the mark left by the garrott.

We cannot be certain of course, but the method whatever he used will always remain a contentious issue.

[Sox]

Hello Prosector.

"I do not believe that he strangled them (compressed the trachea long enough for unconsciousness to take place - about 2 -3 minutes)."

Then how account for Annie's protruding tongue?

Cheers.
LC

You took the words out of my mouth there Lynn, and having spent some time reading this thread I have to say I'm surprised to see actual evidence being bent, or ignored, so as to fit theories. Indeed, the one victim he could not attack from behind (Kelly, if we suppose she was in bed when assaulted) is the one victim with clear defensive wounds, indicating that the killer did not get the chance to throttle her before cutting her throat.

Knowledge and skill are two totally different things, I know how to play football, but can I play like George Best did? If this killer had surgical skill then why does he gut his victims like pigs, what is the reason for that long vertical cut from breast to pubis? Why does he use a blade that is totally unsuitable for performing with surgical precision? It makes no sense to me at all.

If his 'goal' were the organs, then why spend the time to nick Eddowes face and eyes, why all the extra damage? He is using precious minutes that he clearly did not know that he had, & in Kelly's case he leaves all but one of her organs behind! Since the early 1800's human organs and cadavers had been much easier to obtain for research, during the debate over the Eddowes kidney it was even stated how a medical student could have easily obtained such a specimen.

But on the other hand.

I have total respect for you Trev, but I'm not buying your version either. I could produce ten experts who say that Manchester United are rubbish, and another ten who say they are the best team in the world, in other words opinions differ. And we have all seen experts claim that it was possible for the killer to have performed all his work at the scene.

I think this killer had some knowledge of anatomy yes, skill no. Given the amount of damage we see done to the victims (even excluding the ones done obviously on purpose) it simply does not make sense. Working in darkness, and with haste, you would expect a skilled hand to do far less damage than an unskilled one, and I am just not seeing that. He hacks, stabs and slashes, but precision? Not in my humble opinion.