Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[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 Kellyīs side, instead they seem to have been removed and laid beside her with...care!"

And look at the colon piece by Eddowesī 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

[Fisherman]

Craig H: Hi Fisherman,

Good point .... I'm not sure.

Nor am I - but I have what I think is a pretty good idea!

But then if we come back to what was the killer's fundamental motive - was it to:

Kill prostitutes ? He could have done that in a simpler way

He could - and the killing itself was not something he relished, apparently. It seems to have been blitz attacks, with no elements of protraction and/or torture etcetera. So no, the killing was not what he came for. He needed bodies, that was why he killed, if you ask me.

Have sexual release ? No evidence of that

Nope. But there may well have been an element of twisted sexuality involved anyway. But it was not about rape or sexual contact with a corpse, apparently.

Degrade prostitutes who he feels humiliated by ? Possibly - the savagery and positioning of their bodies did that

I donīt think that the prostitution factor was of any other interest than providing prey at a useful hour. As far as I understand, he would have been equally happy to kill society ladies. One body will be as useful as another if you only come for bodies.

Use his surgical or cutting skills ? Yes - if he was no longer a surgeon, then the killing gave him an opportunity to use his skills

He was skilled, alright, but not surgically skilled if you ask me. A quick, meticulous and experienced cutter is how far I am ready to go. And I donīt think he cared very much about his surrounding society and what they thought about his exploits. He did it for himself, not for anybody else, thatīs what I think.

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 donīt 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.

[Craig H]

But if he was not showing off his surgical skills, then we should look for an alternative explanation to why he did what he did with the organs. Why take them out if you are not going to bring them along as you leave?

Hi Fisherman,

Good point .... I'm not sure.

But then if we come back to what was the killer's fundamental motive - was it to:

• Kill prostitutes ? He could have done that in a simpler way
• Have sexual release ? No evidence of that
• Degrade prostitutes who he feels humiliated by ? Possibly - the savagery and positioning of their bodies did that
• Use his surgical or cutting skills ? Yes - if he was no longer a surgeon, then the killing gave him an opportunity to use his skills

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

Craig

[Trevor Marriott]

Clearly we cannot re-enact a murder of this nature to any degree of accuracy, but 5-6 minutes from the first act of strangulation(?), through the mutilations, to him leaving across the square is not beyond reason.

It is beyond reason if it took Dr Browns colleague 3.30 mins to remove just a uterus, and as I said that was probably not under the same crime scene conditions. So further time has to be added for the removal of the kidney. If you double that, and I am being conservative here that is 7 mins just to remove organs without the walking into the square committing the murder and the mutilations.

I don't remember reading the article you mention but Dr. Brown need only be guided by a professional need for accuracy. Rather than asking colleagues for an opinion he decided to conduct the test for himself. All kudo's to him for such an approach. It doesn't imply he doubted the witness testimony.

That is the point, Dr Brown was an experienced doctor, who it is assumed could have conducted the test himself, but he chose to ask a colleague who was an expert in female anatomy to do the test. That to me indicates he may have had some concern as to whether or not the killer could have had the time to effect the removals after being told the timeline as given by the witnesses.

Well obviously, Phillips is trained to be cautious "do no harm", he was not battlefield experienced. I'll bet surgeons working in the American Civil War would have had no problem with the timeline.

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.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Fisherman]

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 ?

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.

So much as you put a finger on an interesting thing, the removal of the organs, I donīt think that the killer wanted to show off surgical skills. He could have done so in a much more apparent manner if he wanted to - and if he had surgical expertise.

But if he was not showing off his surgical skills, then we should look for an alternative explanation to why he did what he did with the organs. Why take them out if you are not going to bring them along as you leave?

[Fisherman]

Wickerman: Yes, I would have liked Bond to have been more specific, the fact he omitted to say left, right or both sides doesn't indicate anything with certainty.

Not absolute certainty, no, but if the intercostals on the right or left side only had been cut through, I do believe that he would have said so. But as I say, no absolute certainty can be had.

Well, we don't know if the intercostals were removed on both sides, which only means the question is invalid.

Halfways, perhaps - but we DO know for sure that he cut the intercostals between TWO sets of adjacent ribs. And it is very likely that he did so on both sides, but even if he did not, why not only cut between one set of ribs. It should have sufficed if he moved the heart from the inside.


I doubt he would cut the hole while holding the heart below his knife, he could stab himself. Likely he would cut the holes(s) first, then reach under to pull the heart down.

I donīt think he used the intercostal cuts to take the heart away at all, as you understand. But if he did, I agree, and I didnīt mean to say that he cut the intercoastals while holding the heart. When I wrote "...why would he not just pull on the heart with his one hand until he had in the correct level, and then cut through just the one intercostal opening?", I meant that the opening would already be there and he would take hold of the heart and pull the cutting area until it was in level with the opening and then insert the knife and cut.

But as I say, I donīt think this was what he did, and I am anything but certain that it would be possible to pull the heart that far down. If he wanted to cut the arteries in this manner, he only needed to reach in with his hand and feel where the heart was situated, and then he could cut through intercostals higher up on the ribcage, say between the 2:nd, 3:rd and 4:th rib.

[Craig H]

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 ?

[Errata]

Or the American whacko, Ed Gein, and his relationship with his mom. Ed didn't go completely nuts until his mother died.

http://www.biography.com/people/ed-gein-11291338

Not entirely true, but his... hobby took on a very specific tone after she died.

[Wickerman]

But he might not have. You haven't allowed for whatever time if any, it took Watkins to look around and then exit the square after arriving as he said he did at 1.30am 2 mins possibly? So your 10 minute window is now 8

Clearly we cannot re-enact a murder of this nature to any degree of accuracy, but 5-6 minutes from the first act of strangulation(?), through the mutilations, to him leaving across the square is not beyond reason.
I doubt Eddowes laid down willingly so he must have subdued her somehow and strangulation/suffocation is as good a means as any.

I am going to return one final time to Dr Browns experiment to find out how quick a uterus could be removed. Again you choose to ignore my comment that he instigated this for a reason. I ask again was that because he was aware of the witness timings and believed as I do that it would be almost impossible to effect these removals with the time known to be available to the killer?

I don't remember reading the article you mention but Dr. Brown need only be guided by a professional need for accuracy. Rather than asking colleagues for an opinion he decided to conduct the test for himself. All kudo's to him for such an approach. It doesn't imply he doubted the witness testimony.

I refer to the removal of the uterus from Chapman and what Dr Phillips had to say about the time it would take to

Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour.

Well obviously, Phillips is trained to be cautious "do no harm", he was not battlefield experienced. I'll bet surgeons working in the American Civil War would have had no problem with the timeline.
Phillips was 'old school', his patients are expected to live after an operation :-) that makes a considerable difference.

[Trevor Marriott]

Re assessment

Letting the evidence speak for itself generally leads to the truth.

It does if those who can, or want to interpret it correctly

So, somewhere between 1:40-1:42, while Watkins appeared at 1:44.
However, Harvey makes no mention of carrying a watch, in fact he implies that his timing was based on him passing the post-office clock...

All timings cannot be accepted as completley accurate

So is his 1:40-1:42 merely an estimate? - very likely.

The minimum time window then is 1:30 (Watkins) to 1:40 (Harvey).
In all likelihood the killer was already gone by the time Harvey came to the end of Church Passage.

But he might not have. You haven't allowed for whatever time if any, it took Watkins to look around and then exit the square after arriving as he said he did at 1.30am 2 mins possibly? So your 10 minute window is now 8

But the main issue is time, and skill in the art of removal, not forgetting that if these organs were removed by someone with some anatomical knowledge and clearly that was not of the expert kind that Dr Brown asked to do the experiment then the suggestion must be that the organs might have been specifically targeted. If that be the case why would the killer stab Eddowes several times in the abdomen before ripping open her abdomen. Those actions would likely as not damage any organs which were perhaps being sought.

So how long would it realistically take for someone with sufficient medical knowledge to remove these two organs from that body at that crime scene given the light available to him, the time available to him, and being in possession of the right instruments not a long bladed knife as has been suggested to effect those removals.At this point I rule out the butcher the baker and the candlestick maker from removing the organs, but not from being the killer.

I am going to return one final time to Dr Browns experiment to find out how quick a uterus could be removed. Again you choose to ignore my comment that he instigated this for a reason. I ask again was that because he was aware of the witness timings and believed as I do that it would be almost impossible to effect these removals with the time known to be available to the killer?

So exactly how much time would have been needed? In an earlier post I estimated a min of 7 minutes that was based on 3.30 mins Dr Browns expert took to remove a uterus, and the same for the kidney, but we do not know under what conditions that experiment was carried out.

With the kidney being a much more difficult organ to firstly locate, and secondly to get hold to be able to cut it from the renal fat that encases it would take more time that the uterus, and with also a blood filled abdomen to also contend with, this coming from the stab wounds first inflicted.

I refer to the removal of the uterus from Chapman and what Dr Phillips had to say about the time it would take to

Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour.

So what time do you think for Eddowes and the removal of her uterus and her kidney? 7,8,9 mins minimum by an expert? that is just for the removals alone, add to that the killing, the mutilations, the cutting of the apron piece, the walking into the square etc. You rely on a 10 minute window which you admit is only approximate and realistically could be now much less now that we have to take away from that any time Watkins spent in the square first time around.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Lets face it there just wasn't the time
.

[Wickerman]

What I would like to know is if the intercostals on both sides of the sternum were cut through. My bet would be on an answer in the positive - they were. If they had not been, I believe the report would have mentioned this.

Yes, I would have liked Bond to have been more specific, the fact he omitted to say left, right or both sides doesn't indicate anything with certainty.

So tell me, Jon - if he wanted to cut the arteries by means of cutting between the intercostal openings, why would he cut them open on BOTH sides? And between three ribs?

Well, we don't know if the intercostals were removed on both sides, which only means the question is invalid.

If the heart was in position to cut the arteries as you believe, why would he not just pull on the heart with his one hand until he had in the correct level, and then cut through just the one intercostal opening?

I doubt he would cut the hole while holding the heart below his knife, he could stab himself. Likely he would cut the holes(s) first, then reach under to pull the heart down.

[Aldebaran]

Or the American whacko, Ed Gein, and his relationship with his mom. Ed didn't go completely nuts until his mother died.

http://www.biography.com/people/ed-gein-11291338

[Aldebaran]

Hi Aldebaran,

This link contains details of weather, sunrise/sunset times and lunar phases for each murder;

http://www.casebook.org/victorian_london/weather.html

I believe there were two gas lamps in Mitre Square itself, although one was said not to be in good repair at the time;

Hi Joshua,

On the whole, one really can't see that, if all the murders [if you count Martha Tabram] were committed by the same person, that he was always waiting for the darkest possible night--the new moon or no moon--although twice there was no lunar illumination. With gas lamps, that would have been a futile pattern, anyway. At least one can't claim the motivation of a full moon. None there.

But there does seem to be a kind of pattern in timing. Again, if you count Martha Tabram's killing, it was about three weeks to that of Polly Nichols. One might think that the Ripper, in that event, was deliberately holding off, letting time go by so that potential victims might let down their guard some. Either that, or he was doing his best to control his impulse. Following the murder of Nichols, it was only a week to that of Annie Chapman. On a roll, so to speak, but then the perp calmed down some again, perhaps had his fill for awhile. Because it was close to another three weeks to the slayings of Elizabeth Stride and Catherine Eddowes. As many have agreed, the Ripper wasn't able, for some reason, to do enough damage to Stride's body to satisfy his blood-lust [or some point he wanted to make] and had to hang about the area, waiting to cut Eddowes up badly.

But then he waited for more than a month to have at Mary Kelly. That was the longest hiatus and the entire month of October was Ripperless. Why? Was he ill, away from London or even England--or had he exerted supreme control over the impulse that drove him, only to have it manifest itself in the most horrific manner yet. Well, he could hardly top what he had done to poor Kelly. This might have been because he had more time, being in her room with her and not in the street but, still, that was the end of the Ripper's rampage. Some think he must have died or left the country and both are possible and even likely. But perhaps something occurred that frightened the man into quitting, a close call of some kind--something we can't imagine. One might wonder--then how could he stop when he couldn't even hold off for a month for most of the period in which he was active? All I can say to that is the period was short and the Ripper had managed not to do anything like that for all the time since he was a youth. A grown man just doesn't decide to commit senseless, calculating, murders on one day for no reason or start to hate women, even prostitutes, just like that. The Ripper was a sicko for sure, and had been ever since puberty, probably, but had managed to control himself from committing murder. My guess is something set him off, something traumatic in his life at that time and not just in his remote childhood. It may have had something to do with his mother. That's right. Karl Menninger, a forensic psychiatrist, was firmly convinced that the problems that caused male criminal activity stemmed from the relationship with the mother. Sometimes, not being able to kill the mother, being powerless against her. these men simply kill and/or rape women they do not know. You can read a little here about the world's biggest psychopath, Hitler, and his relationship with his mother.

https://books.google.com/books?id=tNaS6C5os8kC&pg=PA143&lpg=PA143&dq=karl+menninger+AND+the+role+of+the+mother&source=bl&ots=g-bv3pJptW&sig=kaYi5r8hqQA40RoBL-Q-CZZbDnE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi8tvbHwbLNAhUH8GMKHXQGDLQQ6AEILzAD#v=onepage&q=karl%20menninger%20AND%20the%20role%20of%20the%20mother&f=false

[Fisherman]

Wickerman: Ah, I'm not so sure Christer, let me just remind you of this line by Dr. Bond.

The intercostals between the 4th, 5th & 6th ribs were cut through & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings.

Slicing off the flesh around the body is one thing, but removing the tissue between the ribs requires the point of the knife, like a thoughtful action, the intent seems to be the killer chose to try look into the thorax between the ribs.
Why would he do that?

Because he was fascinated with the female body as an exhibition object, Jon.


Is this action consistent with him trying to sever the arteries of the heart with the blade from between the ribs, as he removes it with his left hand under the rib cage?

No, I donīt think so. He should have opened up intercostals higher up if that was his intent.

Can you think of any other reason he would remove the intercostal tissue between those ribs, if not to enable him to see into the thorax? Or, alternately, to insert a knife blade between those ribs?

I donīt think that any other reason is called for than the one of enabling seeing into the thorax.


I wish Prosector was still around, I would be interested in knowing if the relative position of the female heart in a body standing (in pic above?) changes when that same body is laid out flat on her back.
I wouldn't mind betting the ribcage becomes slightly elevated, in effect lowering the position of the heart with respect to those named ribs.

Is this consistent with someone not choosing to pull the heart out by force, but carefully severing the arteries from above, inserting the blade through the ribs as he holds the heart in his other hand?

What I would like to know is if the intercostals on both sides of the sternum were cut through. My bet would be on an answer in the positive - they were. If they had not been, I believe the report would have mentioned this.

So tell me, Jon - if he wanted to cut the arteries by means of cutting between the intercostal openings, why would he cut them open on BOTH sides? And between three ribs? If the heart was in position to cut the arteries as you believe, why would he not just pull on the heart with his one hand until he had in the correct level, and then cut through just the one intercostal opening?

[Wickerman]

Ah - Brown, yes. I understand.

You are correct when it comes to the dangers of comparing. What I was pointing to was how we cannot know whether the heart of Kelly was carefully of forcefully removed,......

Ah, I'm not so sure Christer, let me just remind you of this line by Dr. Bond.

The intercostals between the 4th, 5th & 6th ribs were cut through & the contents of the thorax visible through the openings.

Slicing off the flesh around the body is one thing, but removing the tissue between the ribs requires the point of the knife, like a thoughtful action, the intent seems to be the killer chose to try look into the thorax between the ribs.
Why would he do that?



Is this action consistent with him trying to sever the arteries of the heart with the blade from between the ribs, as he removes it with his left hand under the rib cage?

Can you think of any other reason he would remove the intercostal tissue between those ribs, if not to enable him to see into the thorax? Or, alternately, to insert a knife blade between those ribs?


I wish Prosector was still around, I would be interested in knowing if the relative position of the female heart in a body standing (in pic above?) changes when that same body is laid out flat on her back.
I wouldn't mind betting the ribcage becomes slightly elevated, in effect lowering the position of the heart with respect to those named ribs.

Is this consistent with someone not choosing to pull the heart out by force, but carefully severing the arteries from above, inserting the blade through the ribs as he holds the heart in his other hand?