Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[lynn cates]

incisions

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"Basically, it was the incisions themselves in accessing the abdominal organs. . . "

Yes. And that on two counts.

1. As you describe, he knew how to get what he wanted. (By the way, I've never understood how Bagster/Baxter could suppose the whole event was for the uterus?)

2. The incisions looked skilful, which, I suppose, means he knew how to use a knife.

And, yes, the Swanson material is hardly ever mentioned.

I wonder if Wynne Baxter kept notes? Might not be useful, but it might explain how he was thinking.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

original cut

Hello Trevor. Ah, thought you might show up since Prosector says some of the same things you have said.

"If my theory is correct the cut around the umbilicus which does show signs of someone who knew post mortem procedures could have been made at the mortuary by whoever removed the organs i.e doctor,medical student or an anatomist."

Slight problem--if the umbilicus were avoided in a later cut, what about the original cut? The sketch in situ shows Kate fully opened. Was the original cut straight through?

Cheers.
LC

[Observer]

I believe the layers of clothing and Kate's diminutive size were major impediments compared to Chapman and may explain the ragged incision.

I second this. Here is what Kate Eddowes was wearing

Dark green chintz skirt, 3 flounces, brown button on waistband. The skirt is patterned with Michaelmas daisies and golden lilies.
Man's white vest, matching buttons down front.
Brown linsey bodice, black velvet collar with brown buttons down front
Grey stuff petticoat with white waistband
Very old green alpaca skirt (worn as undergarment)
Very old ragged blue skirt with red flounces, light twill lining (worn as undergarment)
White calico chemise

It would also explain why the killer cut from the pubes upwards. Chapman and Nichols were cut in the opposite direction apparently, but they wore nowhere near the volume of clothing that Kate Eddowes wore. Access to their abdominal area would have been so much easier.

The volume of clothing surrounding Eddowes was obviously a hindrance to the killer. In my opinion, after the initial ripping of the abdomen, in order to gain easier access to the body he decided to slice through Eddowes clothing

[Abby Normal]

Yes Lynn, that's exactly what I think. It may come as no surprise that I have someone in mind (who has never been mentioned before). His father was a semi-professional anatomist (ie he did public dissections) and I believe that his son may either have started out as a medical student or at least have watched his father and had access to his medical library.

Prosector

Hi prosector
Fascinating stuff. Thanks.
All right out with it . Who is it?

[Prosector]

I'm sorry but I think that my original assertion that this man had some limited anatomical knowledge is getting rather distorted and exaggerated now as most correspondents do not have a great deal of surgical knowledge (why should they?). Caesarian sections were not performed by what Errata describes as standard procedure in 1888 (they were not performed at all to any great extent). The horizontal Pfannenstiel incision was first described in 1900 so no pathologists, surgeons or medical students would have been aware of the possibility. My sole point is and remains that this man in the context of his time seems to have had some, albeit limited, anatomical knowledge and 'surgical' skill. I think that most of you believe that surgeons then had a great deal more skill than was in fact the case. You are looking at it from a 21st century perspective. In 1888 99 out of a hundred surgeons had never so much as made the tiniest incision in a living human's abdomen. Such experience as they had of that great uncharted territory came from the dissecting room when they were medical students (1 cadaver if they were lucky) and such post mortem experience as they might have picked up as police surgeons and such like.

Prosector

[Nemo]

Hi Prosector

I've been very interested in your comments on this thread - thanks very much for the learned input

I have mentioned previously about anatomy and vivisectionist tourism in the 1800's where you could witness horrific vivisection experiments or dissect a cadaver yourself for a fee

In Europe you could have a short course in anatomy while on holiday

Lawson Tait was one of the main guys for abdominal surgery

I'd be interested in your research into "early" anatomy schools (I have a penchant for 17thC experimental physiology)

Could I ask please, what type of training do you think a ship's doctor or "surgeon" would have undergone in general, and what experiences he would have had if he was a Royal Naval surgeon in the 1870-80's

I recently came across "loblolly boys" and assistant surgeons on board Naval ships - They might have dealt with amputations, but would any of these have witnessed or carried out post mortems on board ship at that time do you know?

[Michael W Richards]

We are fortunate that we have an answer to this question in the existing details of the first 2 murders....at least in part. I say that because the question of anatomical knowledge and knife skill must be judged on a per case basis, and the only opinion that suggested the killer of Polly and Annie did not possess either of those attributes was Bond, who saw neither women.

When you look at the victims like Eddowes, whose wounds many feel shows those attributes... I believe primarily due to the murder and mutilations rapid pace, you also have a case for consideration of such characteristics, but she has cuts that are not performed skillfully as well. She has wounds that seem inconsistent with a primary goal of organ abduction, which the first 2 women lacked, and in the case of Stride there is so little to study about her single wound any skill could not, and can not, be determined. But she does lack the singular most significant facet of the murders of the 2 previous "Canonicals"...pm mutilation. In Marys case anyone who could commit murder could have done the knife work...its not skillful or focused.

The police sought to obtain information from local medical teaching facilities, they sought out medical students and people with some medical or anatomical training, ...but only for the month of September. Because when the next 2 murders happened, and were unfortunately assumed to be connected to each other and to the previous women, the profile of this "single" killer had to be altered. Because those next 2 murders were not in the same focused and driven manner as the first 2. Therefore, if they were committed by one man, madness must now be considered the driving motivator...because he didnt cut into Liz Stride when he could have, and he took time to cut up Kate in a purely non-productive manner....unlike someone focused on the organs.

Cheers

[Hunter]

Hi Trevor,

So you are now saying that Swanson is a medical expert. ?

No, I was referencing Swanson's Home Office report which summarized the details of the investigation into the murder of Annie Chapman. He would have relied on reports from others, including that of H Division surgeon George Bagster Phillips. He was reporting elements of that surgeon's notes. Therefore, Swanson did not have to be a medical expert. As a former detective you do know how that works?

Bond doesn't mention anything about any organs being removed

Bond reported that the heart was absent. Although I could be wrong about which murder you are referring to, I'm guessing Kelly's. I was pointing out that Bond's report to Anderson would not have been as detailed as Phillips' official post-mortem report, which is unfortunately now missing.

Go back and look at the post mortem photos and then go back and read the report about the stab wounds through her clothing see if they match up.

I've read both Collard's testimony and list of clothing, and condition thereof, as well as Brown's testimony of the injuries, seen his sketch, those of Foster's and the various photo's. I see no discrepancy between any of them. There was a stab wound made in the victim's groin area along with some other cuts and the liver had been stabbed.

If my theory is correct the cut around the umbilicus which does show signs of someone who knew post mortem procedures could have been made at the mortuary by whoever removed the organs i.e doctor,medical student or an anatomist.

You do understand that Foster made detailed sketches of the external injuries of the victim immediately after the body arrived at the morgue and the clothing carefully removed and cataloged by Collard? The time is noted on of the sketch. The cut around the umbilicus was most definitely made by the killer.

I should also point out that the doctors did not examine the abdomen of Eddowes in any great detail at the crime scene and in fact with Nicholls they didn't even know she had been stabbed in the abdomen until the body arrived at the post mortem so these Doctors who you seek to rely heavily on were not as professional as you would have everyone believe.

Unlike Rees Llewellyn, Gordon Brown was a police surgeon practiced in forensics and had the hindsight not afforded by Llewellyn to understand what had happened before in what was now a series of murders of great magnitude. Many changes had been made since August 31st. Surely you can understand that? Brown even made a sketch of the victim in situ.

If you are in need of any further assistance regarding the evidence, the medicos, Swanson's role at CO, or any other aspects of this case, feel free to call on me anytime. My rates are reasonable...LOL. Take care Trevor.

[Hunter]

1. As you describe, he knew how to get what he wanted. (By the way, I've never understood how Bagster/Baxter could suppose the whole event was for the uterus?)

They were looking for a logical reason for the murder - at least Baxter was. I doubt Phillips postulated that far. Basically, Baxter took Phillips' findings on the physical evidence and ran with it.

2. The incisions looked skillful, which, I suppose, means he knew how to use a knife.

I think Phillips saw some techniques that initially looked familiar to him. Whether he maintained that position later on is uncertain. The East London Observer interview of his assistant, Percy Clark, some years later is interesting.

I wonder if Wynne Baxter kept notes? Might not be useful, but it might explain how he was thinking.

I'm sure he did and maybe they still reside in some dusty attic. I'd rather have access to Phillips' notes. What a goldmine that would be. He was very thorough and precise with details.

[Hunter]

We are fortunate that we have an answer to this question in the existing details of the first 2 murders....at least in part. I say that because the question of anatomical knowledge and knife skill must be judged on a per case basis, and the only opinion that suggested the killer of Polly and Annie did not possess either of those attributes was Bond, who saw neither women.

It should be remembered that Phillips offered no opinion on Polly Nichols. And it would not have been his nature to do so. As he said, he only referenced aspects that came under his direct observation. The linking of Nichols to Chapman and what her killer's attributes and motives might have been were entirely from Wynne Baxter and the theory that he had promoted.

When you look at the victims like Eddowes, whose wounds many feel shows those attributes... I believe primarily due to the murder and mutilations rapid pace, you also have a case for consideration of such characteristics, but she has cuts that are not performed skillfully as well. She has wounds that seem inconsistent with a primary goal of organ abduction, which the first 2 women lacked...

They realized that Baxter's theory might not be valid. Baxter thought that the injuries inflicted upon Chapman that weren't related to removing the uterus was a ruse by the murderer to cover up his real intentions. With Eddowes' murder and mutilations they realized that what Baxter thought was a ruse may have been part of the murderer's intentions as well. They threw Baxter's theory out and admitted that they really didn't know what the Hell was going on. The idea of a lunatic started before the double event, of course. Even Baxter thought Chapman's murderer could have been some deranged individual familiar with the autopsy room trying to get specimens.

[lynn cates]

take note

Hello Cris. Thanks.

"They were looking for a logical reason for the murder - at least Baxter was."

Right. And I think he missed the boat. (heh-heh)

"I doubt Phillips postulated that far."

Agreed again. At most, I think Phillips might have referred to the clean (relatively) extraction and knife cuts.

"I think Phillips saw some techniques that initially looked familiar to him. Whether he maintained that position later on is uncertain."

Yes. Perhaps he was merely comparing to what he saw, or thought he saw, whilst examining Kate together with Dr. Brown?

"I'm sure he did and maybe they still reside in some dusty attic."

That would be lovely. Perhaps he'd say what Phillips and Llewellyn had told him.

"I'd rather have access to Phillips' notes."

Concur. It would be even better if he would insert an occasional opinion.

"What a goldmine that would be. He was very thorough and precise with details."

Absolutely.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

I'm sorry but I think that my original assertion that this man had some limited anatomical knowledge is getting rather distorted and exaggerated now as most correspondents do not have a great deal of surgical knowledge (why should they?). Caesarian sections were not performed by what Errata describes as standard procedure in 1888 (they were not performed at all to any great extent). The horizontal Pfannenstiel incision was first described in 1900 so no pathologists, surgeons or medical students would have been aware of the possibility. My sole point is and remains that this man in the context of his time seems to have had some, albeit limited, anatomical knowledge and 'surgical' skill. I think that most of you believe that surgeons then had a great deal more skill than was in fact the case. You are looking at it from a 21st century perspective. In 1888 99 out of a hundred surgeons had never so much as made the tiniest incision in a living human's abdomen. Such experience as they had of that great uncharted territory came from the dissecting room when they were medical students (1 cadaver if they were lucky) and such post mortem experience as they might have picked up as police surgeons and such like.

Prosector

I hate to disagree, and I know you are a surgeon while I'm just the kid of one. But I still have to disagree, and I can only assume it comes from gynecology not being your thing, so to speak. C sections have been performed since the early 1700s, and the development of the standardized abdominal hysterectomy was in 1878. The problem with both procedures was that prior to the use of ether as an anesthetic, it was a 100% mortality rate. Which in the case of c sections was considered acceptable. The mother was going to die either way, so c sections only functioned to try and save the child. Because of the staggering amount of poor women in free hospitals with gynecological problems, doctors actually made quite a bit of progress on women whose families are so poorly educated that they could not give informed consent. Even with ether the mortality rates were still far above 50%, but there was a chance. Even midwives performed ultimately fatal c sections on patients, when there was nothing left to do but cut the baby out and see if it lived. And vaginal hysterectomies have been performed since 1200s I think.

The Pfannenstiel incision did come later. But the revolution of the (I'm not typing that again. We'll say P incision) P incision was not that it was horizontal. Many cuts were horizontal across the abdomen. The genius was that it exposed as little of the abdominal organs as possible reducing the rate of infection, and that the scar would eventually be hidden by the pubis. So it scars less, and the scar is in a very unnoticeable place. It's called a bikini cut for a reason. Previous to that it was an almost straight cut across the abdomen about 3 or 4 inches above the pubis. Which it still was in Russia until about 30 years ago maybe? Within my lifetime. My grandmother had that scar from an emergency hysterectomy she had in Minsk. Given the stall in just about every technology not involving nuclear weapons in Russia, I imagine her scar is the same as that of an American woman at the turn of the 19th century.

It was not a reputable procedure. First of all any gynecological surgery was considered disreputable. The mortality rate was very high until they started cauterizing the cervix (which hurts just to think about). But these women were dying anyway. Gynecology was now a recognized part of medicine, and a lot of the progress in gynecology, as in every other kind of medicine, was built on the deaths of the poor. Evidently any surgeon who had a new idea went to a free hospital to test it out. The procedure was known. I would like to think the procedure was never done lightly. But a woman who has been in labor for days had very few options. If the patient was going to die unless it was done, and if the patient or the patient's family consented, they did it. And she likely died anyway. So it wasn't a super successful surgery, but it was practiced nonetheless. My father has several histories of the procedure.

And my mom's uterus fell out. Which is evidently not unheard of. So you gotta ask yourself what doctors did about it back then. You can't just walk around that way. We are not cows.

[The Good Michael]

I agree with Prosector, and I will take it a step further and suggest that the crude anatomical knowledge of the murderer seems to exonerate butchers who would have been much better than surgeons at evisceration because they did it daily and no meat or organ was discarded.

Mike

[Damaso Marte]

I agree with Prosector, and I will take it a step further and suggest that the crude anatomical knowledge of the murderer seems to exonerate butchers who would have been much better than surgeons at evisceration because they did it daily and no meat or organ was discarded.

Mike

When I said that this thread has influenced my views on the case more than any other, I specifically meant that I feel much less inclined to blame a butcher now. I'm not on board with an actual surgeon committing the crimes, but I'm now thinking about what kind of people may have anatomical knowledge if not butchers or surgeons...

Anyway, who knows how long Prosector will stay here, so in the interest of impatient casebook readers everywhere, I will ask him to address the issues we've all been waiting for. This has been addressed indirectly, because of the coyness of the players involved, but let's bring it to the forefront.

Prosector, as you may or may not know, the poster Lynn Cates is famous for his claim that Eddowes (and also Stride and Kelly, but that's less unique) were done by a different hand than Chapman and Nichols. His major arguments for this are: the Eddowes mutilation was considered "less skillfull" (implicit there is the assumption that Nichols and Chapman WERE skillfully mutilated), that there were differences in how Eddowes was killed and cut (cut up versus down, one throat cut instead of two, no sign of strangulation). He has a few others, but they don't relate to the mechanics of ripping.

Further, Lynn also suspects that Chapman and Nichols were killed by a madman who was observing horse butchering, and replicating what he had seen done to horses on prostitutes.

(I like to think I understand Lynn's views well, even if I disagree with them - if I've misstated anything it's because of my ignorance, not because I'm trying to smear him or mislead Prosector)

Having heard his theories, what do you make of them?

[Errata]

Do we know for absolute sure that she was cut upwards instead of downwards? Because I look at the sketch of Eddowes at the scene, and it doesn't seem like there are a bunch of choices as to where to sit when cutting upwards.