Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Wickerman]

..... Indeed, the one victim he could not attack from behind (Kelly, if we suppose she was in bed when assaulted)

I am glad you qualified your comment by allowing for the fact she may not have been on the bed at the start of the assault.

is the one victim with clear defensive wounds,

Clear? - clear defensive wounds?
Are you sure, or should I say, 'why are you so sure?'

We can offer suggestions for these anomalies but we cannot promote these suggestions as fact.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Hi Sox

The word precision is not my word or interpretation. I think it has to be accepted that whoever removed the organs must have had to have had some anatomical knowledge to be able to remove them. Lets forget about the crime scene and the condition of the body for a moment

Now we know that in 1888 anatomical knowledge would have been limited so we have to look first at what category of persons would have sufficient knowledge to be able to remove these organs in some way. Personally I rule out butchers and slaughterers.

So that leaves medical students, doctors, surgeons and anatomists. If the killer had a design on the organs as some on here suggest then that might rule these out as their occupations would give them access to those same organs.

We also know that these categories of medical personnel visited mortuaries on a daily basis seeking organs for medical research and were allowed to take organs and in some case whole bodies quite legally.

Now we know that the bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were not examined in detail at the crime scene so we are not able to say that the organs were definitely removed at the crime scene. The full extent of the wounds and cuts etc to the bodies were also not noted in detail at the crime scene.

The bodies were then left at the mortuaries for 12 hours before the doctors came back to do the post mortems. Now despite what some say again we do not know what happened at the mortuaries between those times. We also know that as the bodies were the victims of murder they should not have been tampered with.

However given the demand for organs and the daily attendance of medical personnel seeking out organs it would be wrong to rule out the fact that someone from one of those groups was responsible for removing the organs from the bodies at the two mortuaries and in order to do so may have inflicted additional wounds to the abdomen in order to do so.

All of this could then account for the anatomical knowledge shown in the removal of the organs and the "degree of anatomical skill" used in their removal

Now lets look at the removal of the organs. The bodies of Chapman and Eddowes were taken to two different mortuaries. The uterus and its appendages (fallopian tubes) were removed from Chapman. However the uterus only was removed form Eddowes. Two questions here arise

If it were the same killer and if he were removing organs at the crime scene. Having removed a uterus from Chapman why take a similar organ from Eddowes, and why not take it in the same way?

If it is suggested the killer was taking organs and that was his motive with Kelly he could have had a field day having ripped out her organs by what would appear to be a cut and slash method again different from the previous two. He could have taken virtually all of the body parts away with him instead he took none (the heart is a contentious issue in any event in this murder) Several newspapers of the day reported all her body parts accounted for

So for those who suggest that Kelly was killed by the same hand as the other two and he in fact took nothing then that blows another big hole in the suggestion that the killer of Eddowes and Chapman removed their organs at the crime scene.

Of course the organ removal theorist will never accede to these suggestion however I feel it is not to be dismissed lightly and would all fit nicely into place and answers many questions.

At the end of the day one has to look at the fors and against. You mention the experts Dr Brown mentions five minutes yet he himself never put that to the test so that is simply an opinion. He apparently tried to give some corroboration by asking a colleague to perform the removal of a uterus on a body (not under the same conditions) but that was not successful as the bladder was cut which it was not in one of the victims and with someone working at speed a big problem to avoid doing.

The time factor is important 5 mins Brown says minimum but his colleague took 3.30 mins and that was only to remove a uterus. Add to that at least the same time again to try to locate and remove a uterus, add to that the time to walk in to the square carry out the murder and mutilations you are up to 10 mins minimum. The killer did not have that time available to him

You cannot disregard modern day medical experts who all say it couldn't be done in the time window and in particular given the lack of light available and the condition of the body etc.

[Trevor Marriott]

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.

Hi Errata
Sorry to spoil your sandwich just goes to show some cant keep away from here even when eating.

I can assure you that it is what I said it is

It was necessary to show how difficult it would have been for the killer to find locate and remove organs in almost total darkness in a blood filled abdomen without the aid of surgical gloves to grip the organs to be able to remove them in any way.

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Trevor, get at the heart of the matter.

There is alot to say, but I'm picking just one. Where was "MJK"s heart? The heart's location in the room is not stated. If it was indeed still in the room, why was it not mentioned? Did a medical person or police run off with it?

[Trevor Marriott]

There is alot to say, but I'm picking just one. Where was "MJK"s heart? The heart's location in the room is not stated. If it was indeed still in the room, why was it not mentioned? Did a medical person or police run off with it?

Where was the heart a good question the statement of the doctor that it was absent from the pericardium is ambiguous to say the least. No other official reports to confirm it was removed from the room.

The newspapers reported that after all the body parts had been collected none were found to be missing.

Now of course newspaper reports are also contentious because in this case those who want to believe the heart was taken away by the killer will pour cold water on the newspaper reports. Equally those like me who don't believe the heart was taken away will use the newspaper reports to corroborate that fact.

You pays your money and you takes your choice. In making that choice you have to look at all the murders and all the facts connected to those murders and the big picture.

[lynn cates]

redundant

Hello Jon. A cord or such might help explain some of the killings, but in the first two cases, it seems to make the strangling a bit redundant?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Sox. Thanks.

Hard to disagree.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

The case is solved'.

Hello Trevor.

"Personally I rule out butchers and slaughterers."

But why? Surely some were adept at organ removal?

"However given the demand for organs and the daily attendance of medical personnel seeking out organs it would be wrong to rule out the fact that someone from one of those groups was responsible for removing the organs from the bodies at the two mortuaries and in order to do so may have inflicted additional wounds to the abdomen in order to do so."

But even the kidney--which was MUCH better removed than the uterus--was useless for medical purposes?

"If it were the same killer and if he were removing organs at the crime scene, having removed a uterus from Chapman, why take a similar organ from Eddowes, and why not take it in the same way?"

Actually, you all but solve the case here--if you look closely enough.

Cheers.
LC

[Abby Normal]

Folks,
A lot of you seem to forget we are dealing with a serial killer first and foremost here. All this talk of why he cut here why he slashed there and looks like skill here but not here and why he took this organ but then later took another organ only makes any sense if you realize this.

Serial killers have fetishes. I would venture that the ripper had one with the organs of females but just as importantly that he had a fetish with the knife and what it could do to the female body. First internally and then later externally, ie, cuts to eddowes face and the wounds all over Mary's face and body.

They learn, and grow and change and experiment. They have moods, sometimes they are more angry when they kill, sometimes not and this can be reflected in the type of wounds they inflict.

Also, the circumstances of there kills change. Sometimes they have more time, or light or easier access to the body.

The victims change-how they react to the killer. Or the emotions they elicit from the killer. Some gain more sympathy, some may remind the killer of someone else. All these can influence the type of wounds that are inflicted.

Killers are not robots nor is every kill prescribed like software code or a script. There will be differences between kills, wounds, and yes even MO.

The main thing though, for the ripper, is the knife. His nice , sharp knife. He likes to see what it can do to the female body. And I think it's fairly obvious that he had prior experience with the knife and at least a basic anatomical knowledge to put it to use once he decided to act on his fantasies.

[lynn cates]

petitio principii

Hello Abby.

"A lot of you seem to forget we are dealing with a serial killer first and foremost here."

Purely speculative.

"All this talk of why he cut here why he slashed there and looks like skill here but not here and why he took this organ but then later took another organ only makes any sense if you realize this."

In other words, unless we assume the conclusion up front (petitio principii), we may be perplexed by the many differences in the victims. Agreed.

"I would venture that the ripper had one with the organs of females. . ."

Which did not show up with Polly or Liz, assuming, (as I suppose you do) that both died by the same hand.

"Also, the circumstances of their kills change. Sometimes they have more time, or light or easier access to the body."

And so a completely different body entry technique is used?

"Killers are not robots nor is every kill prescribed like software code or a script. There will be differences between kills, wounds, and yes even MO."

But this was PRECISELY what has led so many over the last 125 years to identify a single killer of five, but to rule him out for others.

"And I think it's fairly obvious that he had prior experience with the knife and at least a basic anatomical knowledge. . ."

Likely true of Polly and Annie's killer, but the rest?

Cheers.
LC

[Sox]

If it were the same killer and if he were removing organs at the crime scene. Having removed a uterus from Chapman why take a similar organ from Eddowes, and why not take it in the same way?

This is one of the most bothersome aspects of the case for me, always has been. The killer does not take it ''in the same way'' because he does not have the skill that has so often been ascribed to him, he knows roughly where the organ is, but he doesn't really know how to remove it.

It's all terribly random isn't it? And that, I've come to believe, is the answer.

Is this just our attempt to find reason in madness? Over all these years, and through countless theories and books every aspect of this case has been micro analysed to the point where we believe this killer must have had a logical reason for everything. Maybe we just cant accept that many of the things this killer did just made no sense to us at all.

Victims, chosen at random, locations random, mutilations random, none of which helps in the identification of this killer of course, but at the same time entirely possible.

Lynn too has a very valid point. It is a well know fact that pigs were/are used by medical students, so I do not think you can rule out a butcher for anatomical knowledge. This does not mean the killer was, at the time, a butcher, simply that at some point in his life he could have worked with or as one.

I do not know why he did not take organs from Nichols, I do not know why he took the uterus from Chapman and Eddowes, or the kidney. But the killer may not have known why either. If ( and yes I agree that is a big if) he took Mary Kelly's heart then why not take more organs? I simply do not know, but maybe he spent enough time with Kelly not to need a trophy/reminder of what he had done.

[The Good Michael]

I think the rub Lynn talks about is that for those who think a lone killer did at least 4 of the murders if not all, there are so many factors that can be thrown together to make that argument. Different victim reactions, different lighting, different mutilations, different organs taken (or not), different areas, different coroners with different opinions, different mental states, or states of inebriation to include moments of uncertainty, anger, pleasure, perhaps even bliss, variances of anatomical knowledge and skill sets, and on it goes...

All these differences can be pointed to in order to accept and even make good arguments for a lone killer. Yet these differences can also point to other scenarios, multiple scenarios, and perhaps the safe method is to incorporate all these differences into a canonical catch-all basket. I see this as frustrating for Lynn. And yet, many scenarios that exclude murders are also unsatisfying to many and seem convenient and contrived in order to bolster certain suspects. But if one absolutely believes in the guilt of a suspect, this is what they must do; bolster a theory and dismiss things that don't fit. To them it is logical to do so, and usually is well-argued. For many (myself included) it is as frustrating as incorporating all things into a lone, unnamed killer is for these people.

And so where are we? Left arguing about trifles...and that's about as far as things ever get...that's the real frustration.

Mike

[caz]

Folks,
A lot of you seem to forget we are dealing with a serial killer first and foremost here. All this talk of why he cut here why he slashed there and looks like skill here but not here and why he took this organ but then later took another organ only makes any sense if you realize this.

Serial killers have fetishes. I would venture that the ripper had one with the organs of females but just as importantly that he had a fetish with the knife and what it could do to the female body. First internally and then later externally, ie, cuts to eddowes face and the wounds all over Mary's face and body.

They learn, and grow and change and experiment. They have moods, sometimes they are more angry when they kill, sometimes not and this can be reflected in the type of wounds they inflict.

Also, the circumstances of there kills change. Sometimes they have more time, or light or easier access to the body.

The victims change-how they react to the killer. Or the emotions they elicit from the killer. Some gain more sympathy, some may remind the killer of someone else. All these can influence the type of wounds that are inflicted.

Killers are not robots nor is every kill prescribed like software code or a script. There will be differences between kills, wounds, and yes even MO.

The main thing though, for the ripper, is the knife. His nice , sharp knife. He likes to see what it can do to the female body. And I think it's fairly obvious that he had prior experience with the knife and at least a basic anatomical knowledge to put it to use once he decided to act on his fantasies.

Hi Abby,

Your admirable common sense will not make you popular, you know.

Add to all this the possible alcohol factor, and all that adrenaline pumping through his body, and who knows what positive or negative effects it could have on each occasion regarding accuracy, concentration, determination, physical strength, powers of reaction etc etc. My daughter is currently working on a dissertation towards her MA in Linguistics at UCL, which involves exploring how speech is affected by alcohol intake - just speech. Every bodily function must be affected in some way or another, and in 1888 the water wasn't particularly fit to drink, so most people drank alcohol on a regular basis. Why would our killer be any different? Yet few people seem to want to take this into account when looking at the injuries found on the victims and arguing for a different killer each time, with a different 'goal'. I don't see why a mutilating serial killer would necessarily have a single goal; he could have none in particular or several, and not all might be achievable. I certainly don't see how it can be ascertained that Chapman's killer (to take Mike's example) had one goal in mind, or that it was to take a uterus away with him.

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Ignorance must be bliss

"And I think it's fairly obvious that he had prior experience with the knife and at least a basic anatomical knowledge. . ."

Likely true of Polly and Annie's killer, but the rest?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Did you not read what Prosector had to say in this regard about the killer of Eddowes (getting to and extracting the left kidney, the navel deviation) and Kelly (extracting the heart)?

Or are you simply choosing to ignore it, just as you admit to ignoring anything and everything about fully documented serial murders, despite the many, many uncanny similarities one can find there to the Whitechapel series from Smith to Coles?

Love,

Caz
X

[Hunter]

To Caz in response to Abby,

Because that's what Wynn Baxter thought. The murderer of Annie Chapman was after her uterus. The other collateral damage was a ruse, a foil, to hide the murder's real intentions. And if not for the careful examination by Mr. Phillips, the murderer might have succeeded. The lack of such in Nichols' case was due to interruption.

Then more murders happened that changed that perspective...except for Baxter, who was stuck with what he created.