Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Errata]

There was no care, no anatomical knowledge shown, the body was simply butchered.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Meaningless. The question was whether or not the murder was controlled. It was.

[packers stem]

I stand by my opinion that the Ripper possessed no noteworthy medical knowledge, but perhaps may have had a rough anatomical understanding.

In my own opinion it seems likely that the Ripper would have been an unimportant, hardly interesting local man. Maybe a butcher, maybe a slaughterman. But in all likelihood not a medical man as far as the term goes to refer to a surgeon or certified doctor.

A butcher and slaughterman would both have possessed some anatomical knowledge which would aid the execution of cold blooded murder.

There were most likely hundreds of employed men in 'bloody' trades in Whitechapel whereas only a handful of people working in Whitechapel would have had medical knowledge, those being doctors.

So the logical conclusion would be that the Ripper would have had maybe some anatomical knowledge but virtually no bonafide medical knowledge. Because the vast majority of people in Whitechapel (to which Jack belonged) at that time where not doctors.

And one can only imagine the slating I would get on here if I asserted that the Ripper was a well respected doctor working at the London Hospital who carried his equipment in a black bag and wore a respectable Cape.

Hi sleuth 1888
Unfortunately for your opinion, the evidence points the other way really.The opinion of modern day surgeons points the other way not to mention Phillips...
Also no evidence of residence in Whitechapel I'm afraid other than modern day profiling which should never have been applied to this case..
I have said this before and I'll keep saying it till I'm blue in the face
Find another supposedly random 'serial killer' where the last two victims had been using the same 'extremely uncommon' name on the day of their death.If there is one out there I'll be amazed.Then, and only then,will I accept profiling. Only possible way we're looking for someone who killed at random here is if 13 millers court was a copycat killing,which I doubt is the case

[Rosella]

Hi Packers,
So you are suggesting that the killer was someone medically trained who was tracking down a specific local woman by the name of Kelly? That woman was Mary. Am I wrong? If not, can I ask what the motive behind these killings was, in your opinion?

[Fisherman]

While most of the papers did not publish Mr. Phillips' testimony detailing the abdominal mutilations of Annie Chapman, one - the Morning Advertizer - did .... The same was apparently done to Kelly.

Yes, more or less. And to Elizabeth Jackson.

[curious4]

It was terribly controlled. Carefully extracting the organs and dividing them into piles. Extracting the heart from the pericardium.

It was controlled. It was not however particularly sane as a layperson would define it.

It was excessive, it was overkill, it was unnecessary. It was almost ritualistic. Gluttonous. Orgiastic. Like he reveled in it. But still meticulous in a lot of ways. Still controlled.

No, I don't agree. Gluttonous, orgiastic (your words) imply loss of control. The piles of flesh on the table, no purpose to it, just cutting because he didn't know where to stop. The way in which Mary (and Kate, cut up "like a pig at market"), no control.

Best wishes
C4

[packers stem]

Hi Packers,
So you are suggesting that the killer was someone medically trained who was tracking down a specific local woman by the name of Kelly? That woman was Mary. Am I wrong? If not, can I ask what the motive behind these killings was, in your opinion?

Hi Rosella
Yes.....not claiming to know what the motive is though.I'm not writing a book so I'm not going to make things up like people do but it's inescapable in my mind.
This was way and above any possible coincidence I'm afraid. Passing it off as coincidence would be ridiculously blinkered in favour of profiling.If the same thing happened today I doubt it would be ignored.Not just any 2 victims,but the last 2 of the C5... What odds??

[caz]

The clincher for me with regards to all the suggestions about the same killer who killed the others removing and taking away the organs from Eddowes and Chapman sinks without a trace with regards to the Kelly murder.

If the killer of Eddowes and Chapman had have had their organs removed at the crime scene, and had the killer of Kelly been the same killer. Then it begs the question why did he not take away any of the organs from Millers Court?

Now before you and others start jumping up and down saying the heart was missing that has never been conclusively proven and in fact on this site several month ago I posted evidential facts, which suggested that the heart was not taken away and now cast a doubt about specific evidence, which has been relied upon to back up the claims the heart was taken. May I suggest you trawl back over previous threads on the topic.

So what can we conclude? We can conclude that on that basis, that if the same killer killed Eddowes and Chapman then he did not remove the organs from Eddowes and Chapman at the crime scenes, given the fact that he could have taken away almost all of the internal organs from Millers Court.

You can conclude whatever you like, dear old Trev, but this lady's not for concluding any such thing. A killer such as this does not play by anyone's rules but his own. There could be umpteen reasons why he might take away an organ from one crime scene, a different one from the next, then decide to ring the changes on a subsequent occasion (by 'operating' indoors, for instance, either by design or happy invitation) and extract a whole assortment of organs, arranging them round the corpse rather than trying to exit Miller's Court with them. If he did take the heart away this time, he was consistent in his desire for variety; if he took nothing, he may have thought the thrill would be as good if not better, and the risk of being caught less, if he didn't have the physical trophies knocking about at his place this time, and imagined instead the shocked reaction of whoever was unfortunate enough to look upon his latest efforts.

But who really knows what went on in the mind of anyone who could do what was done to Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, regardless of whether it was just one mind or two?

Love,

Caz
X

[Abby Normal]

Meaningless. The question was whether or not the murder was controlled. It was.

Totally agree. He wasn't hacking away in some kind of frenzy-throwing stuff around the room, getting blood smeared on him etc.

It was controlled evisceration. same as all of them except perhaps Tabram (who I believe may have been the "accidental" trigger kill.)

There was control. In the ruse phase, in the kill phase, in the mutilation phase and in the escape phase.

[Abby Normal]

Yes, more or less. And to Elizabeth Jackson.

Yup. totally overlooked.

[Abby Normal]

You can conclude whatever you like, dear old Trev, but this lady's not for concluding any such thing. A killer such as this does not play by anyone's rules but his own. There could be umpteen reasons why he might take away an organ from one crime scene, a different one from the next, then decide to ring the changes on a subsequent occasion (by 'operating' indoors, for instance, either by design or happy invitation) and extract a whole assortment of organs, arranging them round the corpse rather than trying to exit Miller's Court with them. If he did take the heart away this time, he was consistent in his desire for variety; if he took nothing, he may have thought the thrill would be as good if not better, and the risk of being caught less, if he didn't have the physical trophies knocking about at his place this time, and imagined instead the shocked reaction of whoever was unfortunate enough to look upon his latest efforts.

But who really knows what went on in the mind of anyone who could do what was done to Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, regardless of whether it was just one mind or two?

Love,

Caz
X

Yes and yes-good post.

[Abby Normal]

No, I don't agree. Gluttonous, orgiastic (your words) imply loss of control. The piles of flesh on the table, no purpose to it, just cutting because he didn't know where to stop. The way in which Mary (and Kate, cut up "like a pig at market"), no control.

Best wishes
C4

Bad thinking and bad analogy. A pig cut up in the market is done in a controlled way.

to repeat-There was control. In the ruse phase, in the kill phase, in the mutilation phase and in the escape phase.

He was in control. But to be fair not always. He was human after all not a robot. I believe he lost control with Tabram-probably his first (trigger) kill and with Stride (BSman), who was not going easily to that dark alley.

[Wickerman]

I think the main problem is that the issue of the degree of 'control' displayed by the killer is both subjective and relative.

[curious4]

I believe the quote more exactly was "ripped up like a pig at market". Not nicely cut up then.

But Wickerman is spot on. And to my mind the killer was
out of control.

Best wishes
C4

[Trevor Marriott]

You can conclude whatever you like, dear old Trev, but this lady's not for concluding any such thing. A killer such as this does not play by anyone's rules but his own. There could be umpteen reasons why he might take away an organ from one crime scene, a different one from the next, then decide to ring the changes on a subsequent occasion (by 'operating' indoors, for instance, either by design or happy invitation) and extract a whole assortment of organs, arranging them round the corpse rather than trying to exit Miller's Court with them. If he did take the heart away this time, he was consistent in his desire for variety; if he took nothing, he may have thought the thrill would be as good if not better, and the risk of being caught less, if he didn't have the physical trophies knocking about at his place this time, and imagined instead the shocked reaction of whoever was unfortunate enough to look upon his latest efforts.

But who really knows what went on in the mind of anyone who could do what was done to Tabram, Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly, regardless of whether it was just one mind or two?

Love,

Caz
X

Caz

So you would believe that the killer risks arrest and detection to take away organs in what can only be described as almost impossible circumstances with little time available to him. Yet when he had unlimited time to remove almost every organ and take away every organ he fails to do so. I think your logic in your answer has gone a bit wayward.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[curious4]

Hello Caz

Never been to an orgy, or likely to be but I shouldn' t imagine those who do are particularly in control.

Best wishes
C4