Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Wickerman]

... There was no consensus. Dr. Thomas Bond, one of the police medical consultants, categorically denied that anatomical knowledge was required at all. Granted, he was the only doctor to voice such an absolute opinion, but even among the doctors who thought the killer possessed some anatomical knowledge, there was no consensus as to how much anatomical knowledge. They certainly did not all think he had a surgeon's knowledge. That would be a minority opinion.

That is true, there was no consensus, however the Kelly murder leaves us at a disadvantage because we do not possess professional opinion on the method used to remove any organs.
All we have is the global statement by Dr. Bond., who incidentally has an established record of contesting the opinions of his peers.

Once the organs are removed (how skillful, and by what methods?), the killer then proceeds to slice away the flesh - how does a professional slice flesh?
The act of slicing at the body can be viewed as barbaric, not the kind of thing a well educated surgeon would involve himself in, ergo, the killer must be an uneducated maniac.
So, as inclined as some are to take Dr. Bond's opinion as the final word, we are in no position to determine what that opinion was based on. And, as mentioned before, Dr. Bond has a habit of contradicting other professionals in the field.

[Wickerman]

Lawende sees a couple standing talking at the entrance to Mitre Sq at the Church passage entrance. This was at 1.35am. Now he doesn't see them enter the sq at that time.

It is assumed that this was Eddowes with her killer. This is a fair assumption as no one else was seen in the area, and no one else came forward to identify themselves as being either one of that couple.

It's a fair assumption Trevor, but it is only an assumption, not a fact.
And as you well know, both Mcwilliams and Swanson conceded to allow for an alternate assumption that Lawende may not have seen the killer & victim at all.

When you have two competing assumptions, the right approach is to detail out two applicable theories - one tied to each assumption, not bulldoze through with your preferred theory against all odds.

The old accepted theory has been that the killer removed the organs. That theory does not now stand up to close scrutiny

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Which might be true IF... the proposed scrutiny was adequately done, in this case somewhat predictably the scrutiny itself falls victim to a closer scrutiny.

[Wickerman]

Letīs look at the Amish killer, Ed Gingerich and what he did to his wife:

"Edward Gingerich killed his wife, Katie, at dusk on March 18, 1993, a cold gray Tuesday preceded by several days of snow. The twenty-eight-year-old Amish man attacked his spouse in front of two of their children who witnessed the atrocity in stunned horror. In the kitchen of their western Pennsylvania farmhouse, he knocked her down, crushed her skull by stomping on her face, ripped off her clothing, and then opened up her belly with a kitchen knife. Through the gaping, seven-inch gash, he removed her heart, lungs, spleen, liver, kidneys, ovaries, and intestines, stacking these in a neat pile beside her corpse."


Was Gingerich a student of Virchow? Most likely not. He was a nutter, who extracted the heart of his wife by means of reaching in under her ribcage.
In contrast to Gingerich, the Ripper did not have to settle for a seven-inch opening in Kellyīs abdomen. He took away the abdominal wall in itīs entirety, and plucked the organs out, and after that it would have been comparatively quite easy to take the heart out too - there was nothing in the way at that stage.

Does it make HIM a student of Virchow?

Please...!

Hiya Christer, hope you are well.

Fair enough, but do we have medical opinion on whether he removed any organs "with care"?

The fact a similar murder (or murders) may occur over time has little bearing if we have no medical opinion on the skill, or lack of skill involved - that is the real important point in my opinion, not the fact some idiot ripped organs from a corpse.

[Rosella]

Books for the use of medical students were sold in second hand book shops and street stalls, Robert. However, if the killer didn't have experience of some kind in that area, even if it was only killing pigs and horses, I don't really see how a book would assist. I think mutilating and removing organs in darkness or semi darkness as Jack did would require some knowledge of mammalian anatomy as well as skill with knives.

[Wickerman]

it is generally sufficient to make one long incision from the chin to the pubes, passing to the left of the umbilicus. (Virchow)

Were books like this made readily available to the public in 88?

Why should a killer with no surgical knowledge 'care' about doing it right?

[Richard Patterson]

Fisherman. I just want to add, that if I did not favour Thompson, I would very easily accept that Charles Lechmere was Jack the Ripper. It is really an amazing discovery and your resilience and research has been staggering. I do want to congratulate you for bringing into the light what seems so obvious after the fact. You have brilliant suspect there.

[Richard Patterson]

Hi Fisherman,

Good to speak to you again. I see you detect links between the Torso murders and the Jack the Ripper murders. If you are right, that they were done by the same hand, it could not possibly have been Thompson. To argue whether the Torso murders were or were not Ripper murders is something I can not do, simply because I know so little about them and nothing about the 1873 torso. To be honest, not being a pathologist, all I can say is that I see similarities between the Virchow method and the murders. To me, what remains the chief one is the habit of organ removal from the victims. In modern autopsies this is routine, but before Virchow organs were not routinely removed and examined. It just strike me as too strong a coincidence that at the same time that this new idea of autopsy, as taught by Virchow, came about, the killer in the East End was doing the same thing, but perhaps you see stronger connections between the Torso murders and the Ripper murders than I do about my suspect, Virchow, and the Ripper murders. So I am not prepared to argue the point here with you, simply because you must undoubtedly feel you know something that I do not. Take care and thanks for your criticisms and thoughts.

[Fisherman]

Richard Patterson: Did more than one expert say that the murders done by Ed Gingerich, was the work of a doctor? I think not.

Hi Richard! Good to speak to you again!

Nope, as far as I know, no expert said that Gingerichs work was that of a doctor. But many experts have gone wrong in that respect. Danny Rolling, a hobo with no medical experience at all, is one such case where experts dubbed him a probable surgeon. And there are others.

Anyway, I am no longer surprised when I read members remark upon other murderers, like you have with Ed Gingerich, to highlight differences, or in this case similarities. Just to let you know that with nigh 7 billion people on Earth, if you just said someone else did this or a murderer did that, I will take your word on it. There is possibly hundreds of murderers, in China, to pick a random country, alone that took out a heart for instance. I still don’t see the point in showing similarities because I do not think it lends much credibility to augments on the Ripper, because the Ripper was different. How different is illustrated by the fact that here we are on Casebook discussing and arguing the ins and outs, almost 130 year later.

Every killer will be "different" in a number of respects, Richard. And if the Ripper had been caught, we would probably not be discussing him much today. He would be another Vacher, another Verzeny, something such - horrific, but not often discussed.

The problem with Virchow is that, when what he preached and what the Ripper did was the same, I can say there you go, cutting from sternum to abdomen –Virchow – accessing the heart through cutting open the pericardium –Virchow. When it there is differences, I can say, ‘Ahh, but Virchow stressed that a student must deviate and adapt to conditions.’ Of course it all should not be about if the Ripper knew the Virchow method. It’s just academic, unless of course there happens to be suspect, such as one on the Casebook lists, who knew Virchow. Oh, wait! There is that one suspect, the one who was taught the Virchow method by his pupil Doctor Julius Dreschfeld, at Owens Medical College, Francis Thompson. That ex-medical-student with the scalpel. The one who lived opposite the end of Dorset Street.

You are working backwards here, Richard, accepting that we know that the killer emulated Virchows work. We donīt.
As for opening the abdomen from sternum to the pubes (not to the abdomen only), well, look at how eviscerator killers have done just that in many, many cases. Were they all students of Virchow or did they just like the idea of opening up the abdomen of their victims?
And did Virchow take away the abdominal wall in large panes? The Ripper did. In two cases - where he seemingly had time on his hands.

And the pericardium? Well, letīs establish what it is to begin with: a sort of sack, made up of two layers, enclosing the heart. The outer layer of the pericardium is fibrous and tough, rather thick and unelastic. And to anybody trying to take the heart out from the chest cavity by reaching up inside it, it will be in the way, so itīs best removed or cut open.

Virchow? No. Necessity? Yes.

I like your work on Thompson very much. I sometimes share your sense of frustration when it comes to people not agreeing about matters.
But I am convinced that the Ripper and the Torso killer were one and the same man. I am equally convinced that the 1873 torso belongs to the tally. And Francis Thompson was born in 1859, being 14 years old when that torso was found.
So to me, it cannot have been Thompson at any rate. It must have been somebody who was grown up in 1873.

[Richard Patterson]

Before we get all too enthusiastic and fired up about the Virchow method of removing a heart, letīs soak up the fact that we only know that the heart was removed by entering the thorax via reaching in under the ribcage.

If the killer knew where the heart was - and letīs face it; 99,9 per cent of the grown up population did - then just how many ways were open to him if he wanted to take the heart out? My suggestion would be: one. And that does not make the killer an avid student of Virchows ideas.

We donīt know the quality of the work that took out the heart, we donīt know how the pericardium was opened up, we donīt know to what exact extent it was opened up, the angle/s of the cut/s (if the pericardium was cut open and not torn open, fully or partly). All we know is that if the Ripper wanted that heart badly, he would only have one way to get at it if he had not brought a saw to open up the ribcage.

Letīs look at the Amish killer, Ed Gingerich and what he did to his wife:

"Edward Gingerich killed his wife, Katie, at dusk on March 18, 1993, a cold gray Tuesday preceded by several days of snow. The twenty-eight-year-old Amish man attacked his spouse in front of two of their children who witnessed the atrocity in stunned horror. In the kitchen of their western Pennsylvania farmhouse, he knocked her down, crushed her skull by stomping on her face, ripped off her clothing, and then opened up her belly with a kitchen knife. Through the gaping, seven-inch gash, he removed her heart, lungs, spleen, liver, kidneys, ovaries, and intestines, stacking these in a neat pile beside her corpse."


Was Gingerich a student of Virchow? Most likely not. He was a nutter, who extracted the heart of his wife by means of reaching in under her ribcage.
In contrast to Gingerich, the Ripper did not have to settle for a seven-inch opening in Kellyīs abdomen. He took away the abdominal wall in itīs entirety, and plucked the organs out, and after that it would have been comparatively quite easy to take the heart out too - there was nothing in the way at that stage.

Does it make HIM a student of Virchow?

Please...!

Did more than one expert say that the murders done by Ed Gingerich, was the work of a doctor? I think not. Anyway, I am no longer surprised when I read members remark upon other murderers, like you have with Ed Gingerich, to highlight differences, or in this case similarities. Just to let you know that with nigh 7 billion people on Earth, if you just said someone else did this or a murderer did that, I will take your word on it. There is possibly hundreds of murderers, in China, to pick a random country, alone that took out a heart for instance. I still don’t see the point in showing similarities because I do not think it lends much credibility to augments on the Ripper, because the Ripper was different. How different is illustrated by the fact that here we are on Casebook discussing and arguing the ins and outs, almost 130 year later.

The problem with Virchow is that, when what he preached and what the Ripper did was the same, I can say there you go, cutting from sternum to abdomen –Virchow – accessing the heart through cutting open the pericardium –Virchow. When it there is differences, I can say, ‘Ahh, but Virchow stressed that a student must deviate and adapt to conditions.’ Of course it all should not be about if the Ripper knew the Virchow method. It’s just academic, unless of course there happens to be suspect, such as one on the Casebook lists, who knew Virchow. Oh, wait! There is that one suspect, the one who was taught the Virchow method by his pupil Doctor Julius Dreschfeld, at Owens Medical College, Francis Thompson. That ex-medical-student with the scalpel. The one who lived opposite the end of Dorset Street.

[Fisherman]

Before we get all too enthusiastic and fired up about the Virchow method of removing a heart, letīs soak up the fact that we only know that the heart was removed by entering the thorax via reaching in under the ribcage.

If the killer knew where the heart was - and letīs face it; 99,9 per cent of the grown up population did - then just how many ways were open to him if he wanted to take the heart out? My suggestion would be: one. And that does not make the killer an avid student of Virchows ideas.

We donīt know the quality of the work that took out the heart, we donīt know how the pericardium was opened up, we donīt know to what exact extent it was opened up, the angle/s of the cut/s (if the pericardium was cut open and not torn open, fully or partly). All we know is that if the Ripper wanted that heart badly, he would only have one way to get at it if he had not brought a saw to open up the ribcage.

Letīs look at the Amish killer, Ed Gingerich and what he did to his wife:

"Edward Gingerich killed his wife, Katie, at dusk on March 18, 1993, a cold gray Tuesday preceded by several days of snow. The twenty-eight-year-old Amish man attacked his spouse in front of two of their children who witnessed the atrocity in stunned horror. In the kitchen of their western Pennsylvania farmhouse, he knocked her down, crushed her skull by stomping on her face, ripped off her clothing, and then opened up her belly with a kitchen knife. Through the gaping, seven-inch gash, he removed her heart, lungs, spleen, liver, kidneys, ovaries, and intestines, stacking these in a neat pile beside her corpse."


Was Gingerich a student of Virchow? Most likely not. He was a nutter, who extracted the heart of his wife by means of reaching in under her ribcage.
In contrast to Gingerich, the Ripper did not have to settle for a seven-inch opening in Kellyīs abdomen. He took away the abdominal wall in itīs entirety, and plucked the organs out, and after that it would have been comparatively quite easy to take the heart out too - there was nothing in the way at that stage.

Does it make HIM a student of Virchow?

Please...!

[Fisherman]

[QUOTE=Pierre;384909]

Hi Fisherman,

So what would have been the differences?

Regards, Pierre

You should ask the medicos who did the examinations. Galloway is a good starting point.

[Abby Normal]

Abby

Being American, all of my "original" ideas come from the movies. Something you posted took me back to a scene from the movie Se7en.



If you've seen the movie, you must remember the scene where Murtaugh tells Riggs that his daughter has just been kidnapped... no wait! wrong movie... where Mills tells Somerset that "just because the f----- has a library card doesn't make him Yoda!"

I don't know how many libraries were in operation in L8nd8n. The net only seemed to want to offer me The London Library, so I went with that. In the catalogue section, I refined my search to books published before 1888. "Human anatomy" had 116 results; however, "autopsy" netted 17 results. In addition to the poem Autopsy by William B. Litch ("Words are Jack O'Lanterns flitting in the sky"), an online edition of Rudolf Virchow's Post-mortem examinations: with especial reference to medico-legal practice can be read. Almost certain that Richard Patterson has covered this; still, on pg. 123-124 is the following line:

it is generally sufficient to make one long incision from the chin to the pubes, passing to the left of the umbilicus. (Virchow)

Were books like this made readily available to the public in 88?

RStD

Sorry devil
You lost me. I thought all that you just posted was what you found online that was in the London library in 1888. So wouldn't all that be readily available to the public in 1888?

[Trevor Marriott]

I used to think that e had surgical knowledge because that was how the case was popularly presented (at least, it was in the sources I was getting my information from).

In the absence of anything to suggest that he used surgical methods, I don't see why he needed any knowledge to do what he did at all. It takes no study, nor very much time, to make a cut, grasp something and cut it away. Not even minutes.

Hi Ms

It does in almost total darkness, with a long bladed knife, and a blood filled abdomen to work in. Dr Brown said it took his expert 3.30 mins to remove a uterus. But I bet it wasn't done under the same conditions as were to be found as the crime scene, and the condition of the body, which would have been a definite hindrance to the remover.

So even it it could be done time wise, you need to add at least the same amount of time on again to remove the kidney, and again that`s not allowing for the conditions at the crime scene and the body

Also not forgetting Dr Brown. As part of his experiment he would not attempt the same removal himself, he got an expert in. Clearly that suggests he had some reservations about the organ removal times to want to try that exercise to see how long it would take.

So playing devils advocate. If the killer did remove the organs he would have had to have not only been a doctor but a doctor, expert in the female anatomy to be able to complete the removals in not only the time needed but the time available to him.

Look at the mitre sq timings if the witnesses are to be believed

Pc Watkins at 1.30am walks around the sq and sees no one. so it must be assumed that the murder had not taken place at that time.

Lawende sees a couple standing talking at the entrance to Mitre Sq at the Church passage entrance. This was at 1.35am. Now he doesn't see them enter the sq at that time.

It is assumed that this was Eddowes with her killer. This is a fair assumption as no one else was seen in the area, and no one else came forward to identify themselves as being either one of that couple.

Now if that were Eddowes and the killer, we do not know how long after being seen they entered the sq it could have been 1.36am. 1.37am. or even as late as 1.38am, but for this exercise I will work with 1.36am approx and all other time I refer to will also be approx with very little room for error.

Add 1.30 mins to walk down Church passage to the murder location depending on how fast they were walking. That takes us to 1.37.30sec

Add up to 2 mins for the killer to make her at ease and to then carry out the murder and mutilations. Takes us to 1.39.30 secs

Pc Harvey says he came back down Church Passage at 1.40am. he saw no one in the vicinity of Church passage so the couple seen a short time previous had gone. He saw no one in the Sq.

So if the couple had entered the sq say at 1.36 they would have only been in there for approx 4 minutes. If it were 1.37 that leaves 3 minutes. Neither sufficient time to carry out the removal of the organs with a degree of medical precision as was described.

By reason of the light behind him as he came down Church passage the killer would have been able to not only hear Pc Harveys footsteps, but see him coming by the light that was behind him from a light at the entrance to Church passage.

Now the killer could have fronted it out and watched and waited but that was an awful risk to take not knowing if the officer would walk down the path and then be on top of him. I would therefore suggest that the killer on seeing and hearing him exited the sq at that point via Mitre Street unseen by Pc Harvey

Pc Watkins states he came back into the sq at 1.44am and found the body

So looking again at the times the killer would not have had enough time to do all that he is supposed to have done. Where is the minimum of 7 minutes for organ removal required by a skilled surgeon?

Forget the ridiculous cut and slash suggestion postulated by some on here simply apply common sense in an unbiased fashion.

The old accepted theory has been that the killer removed the organs. That theory does not now stand up to close scrutiny

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Robert St Devil]

Abby

Being American, all of my "original" ideas come from the movies. Something you posted took me back to a scene from the movie Se7en.

I could totally see this person going to libraries, museums and hospitals to indulge.

If you've seen the movie, you must remember the scene where Murtaugh tells Riggs that his daughter has just been kidnapped... no wait! wrong movie... where Mills tells Somerset that "just because the f----- has a library card doesn't make him Yoda!"

I don't know how many libraries were in operation in L8nd8n. The net only seemed to want to offer me The London Library, so I went with that. In the catalogue section, I refined my search to books published before 1888. "Human anatomy" had 116 results; however, "autopsy" netted 17 results. In addition to the poem Autopsy by William B. Litch ("Words are Jack O'Lanterns flitting in the sky"), an online edition of Rudolf Virchow's Post-mortem examinations: with especial reference to medico-legal practice can be read. Almost certain that Richard Patterson has covered this; still, on pg. 123-124 is the following line:

it is generally sufficient to make one long incision from the chin to the pubes, passing to the left of the umbilicus. (Virchow)

Were books like this made readily available to the public in 88?

RStD

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Fisherman;384872]

What this man was probaly NOT was a medico/surgeon/anatomist, since he did not cut the way they do.

Hi Fisherman,

So what would have been the differences?

Regards, Pierre