Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Wickerman]

I cannot agree with you there, Jon. Bond was present at the Kelly autopsy, and he would have been aquainted with each and every cut on the body, including how the organs were removed. If his conclusion that the killer did not even possess the skill of a butcher or a hunter did not reflect the truth, then we are looking at other grounds of persuasion behind that call.

Aside from that, Dr. Bond only read the autopsy notes from the previous murders, and his opinion of Kelly's condition offers no explanation as to why.

He nevertheless concluded that the killer was not a surgeon, an anatomist, a butcher or a hunter, but instead a cruder creature. That tells me that the heart was not neatly removed à la Virchow and that the organs were not extracted in a manner only known by surgeons. Or Bond was intentionally misleading and lying, a view that has it´s followers just as any view has these days, regardless of the quality of these views.

It always concern's me that Dr. Bond appears to adopt contrary views to those of his peers. Take for instance the death of Rose Mylett, he saw the same evidence as five other experienced doctors, even his superior, yet he arrived at a contradictory conclusion.
A fact which does not instill confidence in how he draws his conclusions.

[Wickerman]

Anatomical skill and knowledge. Not surgical skill and knowedge. There is a difference there.

Surgery is more of an activity, certainly it requires knowledge & skill, but anatomy is knowledge of the body. So generally it is more correct to speak of "surgical skill" and "anatomical knowledge".

[Trevor Marriott]

Civil war surgeons developed a reputation for speed, in amputations, speed in opening up the torso, and speed in locating wounded organs, and/or bullets, shrapnel, etc.
Every surgeon knows where the uterus is.

Of course they do, but knowing something, and putting that knowledge into practice are two different things.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Wickerman]

But you restrict the possible reasons for extracting the kidney to the realm of logical and rational reasons, Jon. What if he extracted it for another reason altogether? What if we are looking at a ritualistic element?

Correct Christer, all this conjecture being the result of no obvious motive.

Besides, if he wanted to show off, then why would he take the kidney along with himself as he left? It would form a serious risk as long as he had it on his person. If showing off was his only intent, leaving the kidney on top of the corpse would have made the point admirably. And we know that he was not opposed to leaving organs with a corpse, as per Kelly.

Now who's resorting to logic..

The very fact that he brought it along when he left seems to me to speak of an attachment that goes beyond showing off.

Yes, there is no need to assume weird personal traits exists in isolation. A person can be an exhibitionist, be subject to fetishism, display bravado, and be a retired, dismissed or failed medical student or surgeon. There's no need to believe it has to be one or the other.
Possibly even a cart driver.....

Prosector made the point you make too, more or less - the killer wanted to connect the deeds by way of performing surgically qualified work on them all.

But if he wanted to make the connection, then why not perform the same operation on all victims? Why did not all the victims have their left kidney skilfully removed? He could do it in minutes, and it would cement the view that it was the same killer overall and that he had skill.

Is it necessary to make a text-book case out of every killing? Time, location , circumstances, all of which are out of your control may play a part in whether he decides to 'operate' on one victim or 'mutilate' another, or perhaps a mixture of both.

As for the Kelly murder, when we look at the body the slicing off of her flesh seems incomplete to me. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he was interrupted in Millers Court too, the body was left in an unfinished state of defleshing in my opinion.
Maybe someone began moving about upstairs or in the hallway and he decided to drop everything and get out?

[Fisherman]

See what I'm driving at?

A tree...?

Just kidding!

[Karl]

Hi Karl, Coroner Baxter, said, 'considerable anatomical skill and knowledge'. The murderer had skill, Karl, and not just knowledge.

Anatomical skill and knowledge. Not surgical skill and knowedge. There is a difference there. I dare say I possess every bit of anatomical skill and knowledge, and more so, than the killer of MJK. But surgical skill? None at all.

You have good grounds in describing the many ways the mutilations on Mary Kelly deviate from what the manuals on Virchow, from the links you have given, though I should remind you that Virchow preached that deviation was not only necessary but encouraged in altered conditions, and for certain, a bedroom in Dorset Street is not a surgery. As Virchow said,

‘‘It is scarcely necessary to point out that there are many cases in which deviations from this method are not merely allowable, but also absolutely necessary. The individuality of the case must often determine the plan of the examination.’

But how does that allow you to deduce Virchow's method was in the killer's mind? If we see the cuts Virchow prescribes, that is evidence of his technique, but if we see different cuts, that is evidence of his technique also? How do you propose your theory might be falsified? What, in your opinion, would be evidence against Virchow's method being used?

As to the links you give, here I can again agree with you that they tell the pathologist to examine the heart without damaging the pericardium. But this was not an instruction to student’s in Virchow’s day, in the 1880’s. May I repay you the favor be providing a link to the textbook that pathologists could access back then

But it was Virchow's instruction. The links I gave show Virchow's method.

This one is from 1885, though I have somewhere the PDF of the 1880 publication. Page 47, of this manual, instructs students to cut into the pericardium, like the murderer did. To quote,

‘After we have opened the pericardium and determined its condition, and also ascertained the external appearance and the position of the heart, its size, shape, color, consistence, the amount of blood contained in the superficial vessels, the amount of fat in the subpericardial tissue, etc., we have then to open the heart and we should do this in situ.’

You might note that it ends with the words ‘in situ’ meaning that although the heart may be removed later, the pericardium is cut while the heart is still in the chest cavity.

First of all, this is not Virchow, so if the work on MJK matches this, it is a nail in your theory's coffin, rather than a feather in its cap. Second, that description doesn't match what was done on MJK either. In order to measure the fluid contained in the pericardium, one would never cut from below. But this was where MJK's pericardium was cut.

As to the removal of he kidneys, whether it was unplanned or premeditated would make an interesting debate, though I would be interested in your reasons for why you it appears that you believe it was a random act.

I'm not saying it was a random act. If JtR had no anatomical knowledge, then I'd say it was a random act. My opinion on this, however, is that he knew where the kidney was, and he knew that that's what he was extracting. However, he did not possess sufficient knowledge to know the best way to get at it.

You do point out other inconsistencies in mutilations to the victims that we would not normally expect in the performance of an autopsy. How well someone with surgical skills could work to a trained method, in the dark, under time constraint, and in fear of capture, is open to conjecture on my part, though I would expect not as well as they are used to.

In the dark, under time constraint? There would have been light from MJK's fireplace, so it would not have been pitch black. MJK would also have had a lamp or several, which would have aided the killer. And the killer took his sweet time with MJK - I don't think he was particularly worried about being interrupted.

Yes, a surgeon under pressure would probably not perform at his best - but should we not look for clues of surgical procedures before we conclude the killer was a surgeon? What you are doing is a bit as if I were to investigate a car accident where a man had crashed into a tree at high speed and killed himself in the process - and concluding the driver was an exceptionally good driver. The evidence for this would be that even exceptionally good drivers perform worse under pressure, and if this poor fellow was under pressure we would fully expect his driving to be less than exceptional. Therefore: the accident victim was an exceptional driver. See what I'm driving at?

In short, why couldn't anyone except someone with surgical knowledge have done what was done to MJK?

[Fisherman]

Wickerman: There's no requirement that a surgeon must remove flesh in 1 inch square sections, just because he is a professional.

Absolutely true! But if we make the point that this killer was dead set on showing off his surgical skills, then we may need to explain just why he did not do so overall. It would have clinched matters in a more definite way.

The important point to remember is, a surgeon can cut and slice like a disorganized slasher, but a disorganized slasher cannot surgically remove organs.

Well, that is almost true. We do know, however, that some serialists with no medical/anatomical/surgical experience, have nevertheless impressed upon experts that they DID have that experience.
Overall, your point is perfectly logical otherwise.

There was so much random slashing to Kelly's remains that superficially we all will believe her killer had no visible experience with a knife.

At first sight, yes. At second glance, other elements are added that make me less certain.

What we are missing is professional opinion as to how her organs were removed, we have no details on that whatsoever.

We don´t. And that´s a major drawback, admittedly.

Which is why some will automatically repeat the opinion of Dr. Bond, but we do not know what he based his opinion on, whether he was more influenced by the overall appearance of the slashing across the body, or did his opinion include the method of the removal of the organs.

I cannot agree with you there, Jon. Bond was present at the Kelly autopsy, and he would have been aquainted with each and every cut on the body, including how the organs were removed. If his conclusion that the killer did not even possess the skill of a butcher or a hunter did not reflect the truth, then we are looking at other grounds of persuasion behind that call.

Aside from that, Dr. Bond only read the autopsy notes from the previous murders, and his opinion of Kelly's condition offers no explanation as to why.

He nevertheless concluded that the killer was not a surgeon, an anatomist, a butcher or a hunter, but instead a cruder creature. That tells me that the heart was not neatly removed à la Virchow and that the organs were not extracted in a manner only known by surgeons. Or Bond was intentionally misleading and lying, a view that has it´s followers just as any view has these days, regardless of the quality of these views.

[Wickerman]

Not a bad idea, altogether - but why would ha produce a result that made Bond conclude that he had no anatomical insights at all, let alone surgical quality insights? Why would he cut away the flesh from the thighs? Does a surgeon do that? Why hack the face beyond recognition? Is that a surgeons hallmark? Why Take Kellys abdominal way away in large panes? No surgeon would do that.

There's no requirement that a surgeon must remove flesh in 1 inch square sections, just because he is a professional.
The important point to remember is, a surgeon can cut and slice like a disorganized slasher, but a disorganized slasher cannot surgically remove organs.

There was so much random slashing to Kelly's remains that superficially we all will believe her killer had no visible experience with a knife.
What we are missing is professional opinion as to how her organs were removed, we have no details on that whatsoever.
Which is why some will automatically repeat the opinion of Dr. Bond, but we do not know what he based his opinion on, whether he was more influenced by the overall appearance of the slashing across the body, or did his opinion include the method of the removal of the organs.

Aside from that, Dr. Bond only read the autopsy notes from the previous murders, and his opinion of Kelly's condition offers no explanation as to why.

[Fisherman]

Craig H: Hi Fisherman,

You may be right that the victims didn't have to be prostitutes. It was just that they were easier to find.

However, I can't see how he could have done what he did without some form of surgical experience. Simply reading books about the anatomy, I don't think, would be sufficient. He did this in bad light, under pressure, in short time frame.

He need not have been a qualified surgeon, but could have studied medicine or surgery.

... or he could have had previous experience of cutting up dead women. Like - say - in 1873, 1874 and 1887, to begin with.

As Prosector outlined at the beginning of the thread, there was a level of skill and experience in the cuttings

Dr Galloway, who examined the 1873 torso agreed very much. And from the outset, he said that the killer was no doubt surgically experienced. But when he looked further at the damage and thought things over, he realized that he had been persuaded to suggest a surgeon by the sheer quality of the cutting work - but overall, the cutting was not the kind of cutting a surgeon would have done. It was extremely skilful, and it bore witness of lots of cutting experience - but it was not a surgeons work.

Prosector brings up interesting issues, but he never saw the victims. He read about the damage, and he concluded that it was not brought about by a surgeon but instead by somebody who had some anatomical insight. Or something such, I don´t remember the exact wording, but he took care not to say that it was a surgeons work.

The skill was certainly there, and that kind of skill could only have come from experience. But the question is: experience of what?

[Fisherman]

In bold above, is what I believe some doctors thought when they witnessed the removal of the kidney. There was no viable reason to remove that organ except to make a statement - ie; "I know what I am doing".

But you restrict the possible reasons for extracting the kidney to the realm of logical and rational reasons, Jon. What if he extracted it for another reason altogether? What if we are looking at a ritualistic element?

Besides, if he wanted to show off, then why would he take the kidney along with himself as he left? It would form a serious risk as long as he had it on his person. If showing off was his only intent, leaving the kidney on top of the corpse would have made the point admirably. And we know that he was not opposed to leaving organs with a corpse, as per Kelly.

The very fact that he brought it along when he left seems to me to speak of an attachment that goes beyond showing off.

Prosector made the point you make too, more or less - the killer wanted to connect the deeds by way of performing surgically qualified work on them all.

But if he wanted to make the connection, then why not perform the same operation on all victims? Why did not all the victims have their left kidney skilfully removed? He could do it in minutes, and it would cement the view that it was the same killer overall and that he had skill.

[Craig H]

[/B]
I think someone with anatomical knowledge, surgical skills and a grievance against prostitutes could be a likely candidate

Basic or even thorough anatomical insights - agreed.

Surgical skills - disagreed. Not impossible, though.

A grievance against prostitutes - disagreed. Not impossible, though.

To me, the killings are to an extent ritualistic. The common factor is how he procures bodies in order to perform mutilations on them. As such, any woman would do, prostitute, housewife or society girl alike. I don´t think that the killer cared very much about the reactions of society - he did what he came for, and he left the bodies as waste when he was done. Since the killing itself was arguably not what he was looking for, it would make poor sense to keep the body parts in order to relive that part - if it had no deeper meaning or substance to him to kill, then why would he want to relive it? Instead, these parts may have offered a pathway to relive the ritualistic element involved in what he did, and where I beleive the organs played an instrumental role.

Hi Fisherman,

You may be right that the victims didn't have to be prostitutes. It was just that they were easier to find.

However, I can't see how he could have done what he did without some form of surgical experience. Simply reading books about the anatomy, I don't think, would be sufficient. He did this in bad light, under pressure, in short time frame.

He need not have been a qualified surgeon, but could have studied medicine or surgery.

As Prosector outlined at the beginning of the thread, there was a level of skill and experience in the cuttings

Craig

[Wickerman]

I was just re-reading Prosector's posts at the beginning of this thread.

I keep coming back to what was the killer's motive. If he was a failed surgeon, or a surgeon who lost his sense of reality, then the motive could have been to demonstrate his surgical skills.

I keep thinking the reason he removed the organs and displayed the entrails was to show off his surgical skills to the world.

I had previously thought his motive was hatred against prostitutes. Maybe it was an irrational, delusional desire to show the world we was a surgeon ?

In bold above, is what I believe some doctors thought when they witnessed the removal of the kidney. There was no viable reason to remove that organ except to make a statement - ie; "I know what I am doing".

I think it shocked the medical community who preferred to believe this killer was nothing more than a slash and grab artist with no medical training.
The removal of the kidney indicated otherwise.

As for his victims being prostitutes, mostly drunk, this was nothing more than the easiest readily available victim.
It was not a case of this killer hating prostitutes, they were just lambs ready for the slaughter.

[Wickerman]

How many battlefield surgeons would be called upon to carry out a hysterectomy? which is what was performed in the case of Chapman. Both her uterus and the Fallopian tubes attached to the uterus were removed.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Civil war surgeons developed a reputation for speed, in amputations, speed in opening up the torso, and speed in locating wounded organs, and/or bullets, shrapnel, etc.
Every surgeon knows where the uterus is.

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;385068]

Hi Fisherman,

I shall try an be specific about what I object to.

Firstly, you postulated three hypotheses in your original post (that is OK but there are problems with them):

1) "I actually think the Ripper DID remove the organs with care.

2) "There is no statement about the organs being shredded by Mary Kelly´s side, instead they seem to have been removed and laid beside her with...care!"

And look at the colon piece by Eddowes´ side - laid out "by design" in a straight line parallel to her body!

3) There is a lot speaking for anything but an idiot ripping organs from a corspe in the Rippers case.

Now, my interpretation of your hypotheses are as follows. Hypothesis 1 is about removing organs with care. This means taking out organs from bodies.

Objections: "Care" is not defined by you. There are several problems with the definition of this word. Firstly, the opposite of care is carelessness. If the killer did not remove organs with "care", this could merely that he did not care about removing the organs - and he hypothesis is that he did remove them). So however he did remove them and whatever the result he must have done it with "care".

So I would kindly ask you to define "care" and how the concept is connected to your theory and to do this from the data existing.

Now, I also have a suggestion connected to that operationalization of the concept.

I think you will point to some sources where doctors have said that he removed an organ without damaging other organs and so on, but then you still have the problem with those instances when he did not do so.

So I think the word "care" might not be valid and so it should perhaps be replaced with the word "precision". The word precision should also be used for describing the grade of precision in different removals of organs - or in types of cutting of a face and so on and so forth - instead of being used as a wide definition for all sorts of behaviours in his signature. Do you understand what I mean? OK.

Next hypothesis, no 2: The organs were "laid...with care", and "laid out by design". In this hypothesis you do not postulate anything about taking out the organs/objects but placing them near or on the body. Here I have two objections. A) The removal and the placing of object are two very different things. And I object to your use the same word, "care" for both, since the concept connected to placing objects is not defined. Could you please define the word "care" in connection to the placing of objects?

Now, the most problematic hypothesis is no 3. You hypothesize that "There is a lot speaking for anything but an idiot ripping organs...".

I have two question here:

"A lot" - is that what you have put forth in your hypothesis 1 and 2? Is "a lot" that he removed objects with (undefined) care - and also that he managed to place them on bodies or a table?

"Idiot" - what is the definition of this concept and how is it connected to the data for these removals and placing of objects?

I understand that the questions above might seem difficult to answer, but answering them might also give you new perspectives on your case, so I hope you will try and give som answers. It is easier to discuss with you if your operationalization of the core concepts in your thinking is clear.

Thank you, Fisherman.

Best wishes, Pierre

Okay, let´s see here ... hmmm ... no .... no .... not very likely ... and no.

Finished. The same garble as always from you, Pierre.

So no, there will be no answer from my side.

That, by the way, could serve to show you how I define care: Care is what you take not to respond to posts that do not offer any prospect of moving the discussion forward.

There, I answered one of your questions anyway!

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;385008]

I never mentioned intestines on a table, Pierre, did I?

I mentioned how the colon section of Eddowes was placed by her side with what seems to be care.

Are you objecting to that?

Hi Fisherman,

I shall try an be specific about what I object to.

Firstly, you postulated three hypotheses in your original post (that is OK but there are problems with them):

1) "I actually think the Ripper DID remove the organs with care.

2) "There is no statement about the organs being shredded by Mary Kelly´s side, instead they seem to have been removed and laid beside her with...care!"

And look at the colon piece by Eddowes´ side - laid out "by design" in a straight line parallel to her body!

3) There is a lot speaking for anything but an idiot ripping organs from a corspe in the Rippers case.

Now, my interpretation of your hypotheses are as follows. Hypothesis 1 is about removing organs with care. This means taking out organs from bodies.

Objections: "Care" is not defined by you. There are several problems with the definition of this word. Firstly, the opposite of care is carelessness. If the killer did not remove organs with "care", this could merely that he did not care about removing the organs - and he hypothesis is that he did remove them). So however he did remove them and whatever the result he must have done it with "care".

So I would kindly ask you to define "care" and how the concept is connected to your theory and to do this from the data existing.

Now, I also have a suggestion connected to that operationalization of the concept.

I think you will point to some sources where doctors have said that he removed an organ without damaging other organs and so on, but then you still have the problem with those instances when he did not do so.

So I think the word "care" might not be valid and so it should perhaps be replaced with the word "precision". The word precision should also be used for describing the grade of precision in different removals of organs - or in types of cutting of a face and so on and so forth - instead of being used as a wide definition for all sorts of behaviours in his signature. Do you understand what I mean? OK.

Next hypothesis, no 2: The organs were "laid...with care", and "laid out by design". In this hypothesis you do not postulate anything about taking out the organs/objects but placing them near or on the body. Here I have the following two objections:

The removal and the placing of objects are two very different things. And therefore I object to your use the same word, "care" for both.

Also, the concept connected to placing objects is not defined. Could you please define the word "care" in connection to the placing of objects?

Now, the most problematic hypothesis is no 3. You hypothesize that "There is a lot speaking for anything but an idiot ripping organs...".

I have two questions for you here:

"A lot" - is that what you have put forth in your hypothesis 1 and 2? Is "a lot" that he removed objects with (undefined) care - and also that he managed to place them on bodies or a table with (undefined) care?

"Idiot" - what is the definition of this concept and how is it connected to the data for these removals and placing of objects?

I understand that the questions above might seem difficult to answer, but answering them might also give you new perspectives on your case, so I hope you will try and give som answers.

It is easier to discuss with you if your operationalizations of the core concepts in your thinking are clear.

Thank you, Fisherman.

Best wishes, Pierre