Originally posted by Richard Patterson
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Did he have anatomical knowledge?
Collapse
X
-
Regards, Jon S.
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostJust by way of clarification, several organs were removed from the body, but still found in the room - eg: placed around the bed. None of these were described as 'absent', so we can take it that 'absent' in this case means 'from the room'.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostMaybe I am not understanding the argument.
The heart lies behind the ribcage, if you do not have the means to cut the ribs to remove them then the only way is to go under the ribcage.
What other explanation is required?
2:40 in at www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPg-D4Jxb6MBona fide canonical and then some.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Batman View PostThe problem is that there is a lot of organ parts in around the upper frontal ribs. He would have to locate the top of the heart without seeing it and sever at this point. While it might seem like an easy smash and grab I saw a video from a surgeon who explained this better than I can.
2:40 in at www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPg-D4Jxb6M
Yes Nick Warren is a well known surgeon among Ripper enthusiasts, he used to write on the case.
I notice he did say that the heart must have been removed from underneath.
We should perhaps not read too much into that.
The killers (left?) hand will have grasped the heart from below, yes, but there is no way he could have used the knife (in his right hand?) to sever the arteries & attachments from below at the same time.
If you notice Dr. Bond's report stated that her breasts had been removed by circular incisions. This would allow visual access to the rib cage where he would insert the knife between the ribs to sever the upper heart attachments.
So he still does remove the heart from below, because that is the direction it was withdrawn from.
However, I think it would be extremely difficult for him to sever the upper attachments to the heart from the same location.
This had to be done from the front of the torso, likely by inserting the blade through the ribs.Regards, Jon S.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Trevor Marriott View PostWithout wanting to create another uproar here on the topic of the heart. All I will say is that in my opinion there is more evidence to show that he did not take it away, than there is to show he did.
www.trevormarriott.co.uk
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostJust by way of clarification, several organs were removed from the body, but still found in the room - eg: placed around the bed. None of these were described as 'absent', so we can take it that 'absent' in this case means 'from the room'.The early bird might get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Wickerman View PostAh, thankyou, I see what you mean.
If you notice Dr. Bond's report stated that her breasts had been removed by circular incisions. This would allow visual access to the rib cage where he would insert the knife between the ribs to sever the upper heart attachments.
Between the 4th and 5th and 6th ribs would be around the middle of the ribcage. To get to the heart's top would require going between 1 and 2 or 2 and 3, but even 3 to 4, let alone between 4,5 and 6 would be quite a task.
Performing a double mastectomy so as to get access to the aorta, ateries and superior vena cava because there is no instrument to open the ribcage is not something I would expect from a general member of the public who doesn't have practical applied anatomical experience.
The very top of the heart is well protected beneath the chest bone. There are also lungs and a lower trachae to deal with and the upper portion of the oescophagus, all of this red in the dim flickering light of Kelly's fireplace.
I think the fact he can do this and get kidneys and in other instances perform a hysterectomy in the dark in minutes leaves me with no alternative but to believe JtR has observed medical procedures involving such anatomical knowledge.
What I see in JtRs signature is the idea of someone with medical knowledge and a need to de-feminize prostitutes in a lust killing and is able to speedly conducted organ removal due to that applied anatomical experience.Bona fide canonical and then some.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Robert View PostBatman, how long do you think he took? I have seen views ranging from hours to 20 minutes or so.
I think 5 min. max of those where spent on the kidney and the other 5 min. on the rest. The point is the greater portion or at least half of that attack would have spent on obtaining the kidney.
With Kelly he may have been able undress so as not to get blood on his sleeves because that removal of the heart that way isn't something you do without getting a lot of red on your lower arms I would think.
He spent a few minutes burning clothes so may have added his own shirt.
So aside from the time spent getting her into bed and time spent burning clothes, I would estimate 10 minutes for the general mutilations and 5-10 max minutes getting to the heart. So 20 minutes + 10 for in and out and I say he did everything from entering to leaving in under 30 minutes max.
Do you notice that Mary Kelly's right lower leg has a perfect circular knife wound running around so it looks like the top of a stocking or something? That sort of pre-marking before cutting is found in surgery such as amputations.Last edited by Batman; 12-15-2014, 12:10 PM.Bona fide canonical and then some.
Comment
-
Interesting you should say that, Batman, because some years ago we did have a discussion on whether it was a cut or the top of a stocking. Given what you say about the Kelly murder, would you expect Phillips or Brown to have picked up on the student aspect? Bond doesn't seem to have done.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Robert View PostInteresting you should say that, Batman, because some years ago we did have a discussion on whether it was a cut or the top of a stocking. Given what you say about the Kelly murder, would you expect Phillips or Brown to have picked up on the student aspect? Bond doesn't seem to have done.
However both breasts where removed by circular incision, so circular cutting is something JtR can do. The right thigh was denuded in front to the bone. The part nearest the knee just above the 'stocking part' looks pretty clean and circular to me.
We know she wears clothes in bed but there doesn't appear to be any torn stocking around that elastic part which you can see elsewhere where clothes are torn. In fact the blow-ups look nothing like a stocking top.
That image is like 90% shark attack, but its the 10% remaining that clues us into someone with experience.
The other MJK photograph is taken from the other side of the bed (I have no idea how the photographer managed to get in there) but the circular cut runs around the leg.
If you look at the full photograph of MJK you will notice that the sheets on the bed at the left side lower are up revealing the matress which would happen by someone kneeling there and moving about a lot. So it looks like he was there pulled that leg over, was starting that circular cut (which you could picture him trying to strip and denude to the bone) but stops. Why? Because its awkward. He has to pull that leg over and work at very odd angles with it. So I think we are seeing a preparation marking for a removal that never happened and it looks supiciously like something someone in the medical world would do.
I think in modern times Bond's view that there is no medical training or knowledge is not well received.Last edited by Batman; 12-15-2014, 01:46 PM.Bona fide canonical and then some.
Comment
Comment