Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Errata]

I also don't know what to make of the fact that so many people in this thread seem confident that they could re-create the murders.

I have no problem admitting I could not. Certainly not in Mitre Square in darkness in five to ten minutes. I wonder how Lynn Cates's copycat managed that on his first try.

For the same reason hindsight is 20/20. I can recreate what he did because I know what he did. Ask me to go through the back and remove a spleen instead, and I got nothing. I have no idea how to do that. I certainly haven't researched or studied the anatomy involved.

One of the questions is, would "Jack" be able to to remove the spleen? Could he take out tonsils? Was his anatomical knowledge generalized like say a surgeon or a butcher , or was it specific to what he wanted? Did he have full anatomical knowledge, or did he just research how to get what he wanted? And I have no idea what the answer to that is.

[c.d.]

Hello Prosector,

Let me belatedly welcome you to the boards. Thank you for your very interesting and certainly thought provoking posts.

I keep thinking of the line in the movie "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid." Butch tells Sundance that he has never shot anybody before. Sundance responds "aim dead center. That way if you miss, you'll still hit something." That certainly could have been the approach favored by Jack, i.e., reach in and grab.You are bound to come away with something.

The truth probably lies between the two extremes of surgical knowledge and the cut, grab and run method.

c.d.

[Damaso Marte]

The point I was getting at was, where there is a will there is a way. If you were to change, your mind, soul, being etc, whatever, and you decided you wanted to then the door is open to being able to. Then take the needed steps and you are there. I don't like limitations. Self imposed or otherwise. Digressing....... now. Sincerest apologies.

I'm sure that if I were given a generous amount of time and resources to learn anatomy and practice on cadavers, I could eventually, with some luck, re-create the Eddowes murder. But just as nobody is ever going to give me those time and resources, I doubt some random resident of Victorian Whitechapel had it.

I'm not sure why we should expect a first-time killer (if not, then almost certainly a first-time ripper) to pull off the Eddowes murder. Presumably, Lynn's copycat killer never had that kind of "practice" and had never ripped before, least of all in the dark under time constraints with two cops and a watchman around.

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Damaso.

"Presumably, Lynn's copycat killer never had that kind of "practice" and had never ripped before, least of all in the dark under time constraints with two cops and a watchman around."

Right. And it shows.

Now, let's wait until Prosector finishes.

Cheers.
LC

[Prosector]

Hi DW

Bond was a curious character. Although he was described as a surgeon he was in fact appointed as Surgeon to the Out Patients Department of the Westminster Hospital which meant that he hardly got to do any operative surgery himself. He committed suicide by jumping out of a window in 1901 ostensibly because he was having trouble sleeping but he was also suffering from a urinary stricture almost certainly the result of gonorrhoea.

Although he was adamant that Jack did not possess surgical skill or anatomical knowledge don't forget that the only victim that he saw was Mary Jane and I don't think anyone could have deduced anything from that killing. She certainly was butchered and very little evidence of skill or otherwise was left although the way he extracted her heart from below through the abdominal cavity did, in my opinion, show some evidence of anatomical expertise. It's not an easy approach to the heart (he couldn't get at it through the chest although he did try because he had no rib retractors).

I have studied all the post mortem reports in detail and those of Phillips and Brown stand out as models of their kind. Detailed, accurate and thoughtful as you'd expect from two experienced police surgeons in one of the most busy crime and accident ridden areas in 19th century Britain. They both though that the Ripper had anatomical knowledge and some degree of surgical skill but that he wasn't a fully fledged doctor. I would entirely agree with that. There is clear evidence that his technique improved from Polly Nichols to Kate Eddowes - he was on a learning curve.

I believe that his motive was to make the killings all have the same 'signature' so that people would connect them, not to carry out perfect surgical operations. There simply wasn't time for that even if he had been the best surgeon in the world.

Prosector

[Digalittledeeperwatson]

Hullo Prosector

So which victims do you attribute to the same killer? And what is your opinion on the differences between Chapman and Eddowes?

[DVV]

Thanks for the reply, Prosector.
To be honest, I have a feeling that you are mixing up necrosadist murders and operations.
That was perhaps the mistake Phillips (and Baxter) made - hence the police calling Dr Bond.

Cheers

[lynn cates]

comment

Hello Prosector. Thanks for the further explanation.

"I have studied all the post mortem reports in detail and those of Phillips and Brown stand out as models of their kind. Detailed, accurate and thoughtful as you'd expect from two experienced police surgeons. . ."

Completely agree. Both these doctors seem experts in their field.

I was wondering if you could comment on the Baxter/Phillips claim that there was no skill (but certainly knowledge) in Kate's case?

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

You are assuming that the 'surgeon' is planning in advance to excise a particular organ. That is his goal from the start, so he is careful and methodical to achieve it. That means TAKING HIS TIME. By ALL accounts, that is NOT how Jack worked.

This is a point that is often overlooked. If Jack is still trolling for a victim, and has already made up his mind that he is going home with a kidney, then when he is done, it's something very impressive. One the other hand, if he went in with no set goal, and at some point realized he had his hand on a squishy bit that was coming loose, so he worked to get it completely loose, that's not so impressive.

Also, I have never taken parts out of a living creature, or a corpse for that matter (I was "sick" that week in biology), but I have removed a lot of car parts, and I have also put them back.

There is a huge difference between the way you remove something when you want to put everything back together, and the way you remove it when you don't. When I would go to a junkyard to pull a part, I'd snip wires, cut hoses, and saw through rusty bolts, even saw through old support pieces sometimes, if I wanted to get in and out, and I could go home and soak the thing in rust releaser overnight. However, when I removed a part from a car that I wanted to put back together and have run, it was a much more careful process.

That is to say, even if JtR were a surgeon, or possessed some kind of medical training, he was not performing surgery on these women, so we really don't know what he would do. Has there ever been a surgeon who also mutilated corpses, that we know of? Did the victims look like patients who'd been abandoned in the middle of surgery? or did they just look like murder victims who'd been mutilated?

[Wickerman]

Hello Prosector.

.... although the way he extracted her heart from below through the abdominal cavity did, in my opinion, show some evidence of anatomical expertise. It's not an easy approach to the heart ...

Interesting point, exactly what our previous Senior Gynaecologist observed and that he couldn't imagine himself having the ability to do this. He did acknowledge though, that in his line of specialization he would never be expected to do this either. However, he had the knowledge and experience to be able to appreciate the difficulties.

My question concerning the Millers Court murder, given the position of the body on the bed, and the position of the bed against the wall, wouldn't this suggest the heart was removed with his left hand?

I would entirely agree with that. There is clear evidence that his technique improved from Polly Nichols to Kate Eddowes - he was on a learning curve.

This bit I don't understand. If learning requires practice, and practice makes perfect, then what was he doing between these two murders for him to learn from?
In actual fact most students of the case who hold this opinion tend to say he learned between Nichols and Chapman, which is even harder to understand.

As you know, Dr Phillips suggested that he observed skill in the method of mutilating Chapman, "but only less so in consequence of haste".
I think this is the key to why the attack on Nichols was so apparently 'less skillful' - it was not that he had yet to learn, it was likely due to lack of confidence. He was more concerned with his surroundings, in an open street, footsteps in the distance, not being able to see someone approach in the darkness. Therefore, his mind is not as focused.

With Chapman it was light, he was enclosed from view, although near to sleeping residents, it would not be an easy matter for anyone raising the alarm at a window, to then come outside and tackle him, by then he could be gone down the passage, or alternately, over an adjoining fence.

With Eddowes, he found himself in the darkest location yet, and just as anxious as he was with Nichols. Not an easy spot to escape from should someone approach around the corner from Mitre St. So, his attention is once again divided and less focused, therefore, a little more haphazard with respect to apparent skill.

There simply wasn't time for that even if he had been the best surgeon in the world.

Exactly, though it has been suggested elsewhere that the methods of the homegrown surgeon like Phillips would be considerably slower than a surgeon with battlefield experienced - they worked fast and furious, needs must, as they say.

Thankyou for your time & input.

[Errata]

She certainly was butchered and very little evidence of skill or otherwise was left although the way he extracted her heart from below through the abdominal cavity did, in my opinion, show some evidence of anatomical expertise. It's not an easy approach to the heart (he couldn't get at it through the chest although he did try because he had no rib retractors).

Prosector

Two questions, fairly unrelated

1: The thing that gets me with the mutilation of Eddowes is the invagination of the colon. Which as best as I can figure out requires muscle activity to happen. Which would mean she was still technically alive at that point. But she couldn't possibly still be alive at that point. How does that happen to a corpse?

2: Do you read the list of the dispensation of Mary Kelly's organs and see something odd? Yes or no is fine, it's not a test. I'm checking my point of view. Because sometimes it's skewed.

[Prosector]

The 'reach in and grab' method that you describe doesn't really work when it comes to mobilising the small intestine which he did in both the Chapman and the Eddowes cases. As I mentioned in a previous post, he used the method that is used by medical students in dissecting the human body and by surgeons and pathologists, namely dividing the root of the mesentery. You can think of it this way: imagine a large crinkly lettuce leaf still attached to the lettuce. The small intestine runs along the edge of the leaf. You need to detach it from the rest of the plant. You could do that by carefully cutting all the way along the edge of the leaf, being careful not to actually cut across the ege of the leaf, or you could just cut through the stalk (the root of the mesentery) which is what he did.

The small intestine and mesentery is about 50 times bigger than a lettuce leaf so you can see how long it would take using the grab and cut technique. But you would have to know about how and where to find and divide the root of the mesentery. Medical students, doctors and (probably) butchers would know how to divide the root of the mesentery but not any old homicidal maniac.

And by the way, the question of whether he deliberately removed the descending colon to get at Eddowes's left kidney is, I think, answered in Brown's post mortem report. He states that a section of colon about two feet long (the exact length of the descending colon) was removed and the sigmoid flexure was invaginated into the rectum. That is exactly what surgeons and pathologists do if the have to excise the descending colon. Invaginating the sigmoid into the rectum (not easy, even with help - rather like trying to turn the finger of a very slippery glove inside out) is done to stop faeces, which is largely stored in the sigmoid and rectum, from oozing back into the abdominal cavity. Of course a surgeon would stitch it in place to stop it popping out again but it is not a manoeuvre that would instinctively occur to someone who had not previously observed it I think.

Just another reason why I think JTR had at least seen some of these things being done even if he hadn't previously done them himself.

Prosector

[Cogidubnus]

Putting it mildly, this stuff is like gold Prosector...Thanks

All the best

Dave

[lynn cates]

consultation

Hello Prosector. Thanks for that explanation.

Kate's killer sounds like someone who had picked up some medical skills. Could one learn this from a book or in consultation?

Cheers.
LC

[Cogidubnus]

Hi Prosector

Could I take you up on your earlier offer and ask why it was he cut around the umbilicus instead of across it?

Thanks

Dave