Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[DVV]

Hi Prosector

The fact that killings ceased right after MJK may be indicative of the fact that he got the one he wanted.

Agreed. But I won't put it that way. Imo McKenzie is a possible victim, and would indicate an emotional decrescendo, after the Automn 88 crescendo.

If he was a blood lust killer he would surely have gone on (and probably been caught in the end as most other true serial killers are).

But he was a a blood lust killer.
With one non-random victim in mind.
Quite like Kemper with his mother.

[Wickerman]

As I keep pointing out, you cannot 'grab in the dark' for the left kidney. It is buried deep behind several other substantial structures including the descending colon, the posterior parietal peritoneum and perinephric fat. It simply does not come to hand if you just stick your hand in the abdomen. You have to know exactly where it is and then systematically remove or divide the other structures before you van get at it.

And not forgetting one description (was it by Phillips?), suggested that the kidney had been removed "with care".

[Abby Normal]

I agree that it is not certain the killings stopped after MK. I too think mckenzie is a definite possibility.

I think he knew MK but would stop short of saying she was his intended victim all along. I just the think the son of a bitch got extremely lucky with her because of her situation-that is that she recently broke up with Barnett, was living alone and was eventually alone when he caught up with her that night.

[Sally]

Exactly Abby. Her death occurred so soon after Barnett's departure that either:

She altered her habits dramatically in that short space of time and began to engage in highly risky behaviour - i.e. taking strangers home with her in the dead of night in the heart of murder district, and with full knowledge of the risk she was undertaking.

Her killer knew her - at least well enough to know that she was unprotected by Barnett.

I personally consider the latter to be the most likely.

[Jon Guy]

Hi Sally

Her killer knew her - at least well enough to know that she was unprotected by Barnett.

A total stranger could have asked whether her old man was going to return.
Especially, a stranger who had more than a bit of ow`s your father on his mind.

[Sally]

Hi Sally



A total stranger could have asked whether her old man was going to return.
Especially, a stranger who had more than a bit of ow`s your father on his mind.

Hi Jon,

Yep - he could've done; although that presupposes that Kelly was taking strangers back to her room to begin with. I am unsure about that.

[DVV]

I'm with Sally, here.
MJK is at the same time the last victim (mutilated in a full Ripper style, at least), the youngest and the only one killed in her room - soon after Barnett left her.

All is possible, but imo it says something.

[Hunter]

And not forgetting one description (was it by Phillips?), suggested that the kidney had been removed "with care".

It was Gordon Brown who stated that Catherine Eddowes' kidney had been 'carefully removed.' We really don't know exactly what Phillips thought... not that it matters at this point as you can see where this thread's headed.

[Abby Normal]

Exactly Abby. Her death occurred so soon after Barnett's departure that either:

She altered her habits dramatically in that short space of time and began to engage in highly risky behaviour - i.e. taking strangers home with her in the dead of night in the heart of murder district, and with full knowledge of the risk she was undertaking.

Her killer knew her - at least well enough to know that she was unprotected by Barnett.

I personally consider the latter to be the most likely.

Yup. According to the witnesses, she was with four men that night and I would venture that one of them were her killer: Barnett, Blotchy, Hutch and A-man.

Barnett-had an alibi and cleared by police
Hutch-places himself there but story about meeting Mary and Aman highly suspicious.
Aman-probably a fictitious character.
Blotchy-last credible suspect seen with Mary entering her house.


My money is on Blotchy as I have said many times before. Hutch a close second.

Also, to your point, All circumstances point to Mary probably knowing blotchy and feeling comfortable with him and not heading out again that night-bringing him back to her place, singing, pot of ale, very drunk, fire, nasty night.

And since there is not anything in the record that Barnett and hutch had any kind of anatomical/surgical knowledge that again leaves blotchy as the only possibility in that area.

[DVV]

not that it matters at this point as you can see where this thread's headed.

You're right, Cris, we should have stayed on topic and I'm sorry for my post - although Prosector himself started putting his theory forward.
With respect, but to be honest, the fact that he has a specific suspect and scenario in mind adds little to his anatomical expertise.

Once again, you were right and the primary topic is wide enough.

Cheers

[Prosector]

That is the reason surgeons in particular deviate around it (because they have to sew it up afterwards). People that don't have to sew it up - for instance butchers - don't have to bother and can easily slice through it (although as someone has pointed out, it is a peculiarly tough structure in humans but not as tough in most other animals).

Prosector

[lynn cates]

detour

Hello Prosector. Thanks.

So, given its toughness, perhaps a detour was in order--when noticed?

Cheers.
LC

[RivkahChaya]

I think he knew MK but would stop short of saying she was his intended victim all along. I just the think the son of a bitch got extremely lucky with her because of her situation-that is that she recently broke up with Barnett, was living alone and was eventually alone when he caught up with her that night.

In one of the "Rizzoli & Isles" books, Tess Gerritsen uses the Ripper crimes as a very loose framework for the plot. There are five murders (or attempts), including one that is interrupted before he gets to do everything he wanted-- by a phone call. It made me laugh, just because it was very subtle, and I don't think someone not very familiar with the Ripper crimes would recognize it as a 21st century pony-cart.

Anyway, while I think Gerritsen was just trying to write an interesting book, not build a JtR theory, in the book, the MJK character is the one-who-got-away.

The Ripper framework accounts just for the killers crimes in one location-- Boston, which of all US cities probably makes the best Victorian London, with very old buildings, and narrow streets-- anyway, the MJK character was a previous victim of opportunity who got away, so now the killer is stalking her when he finds himself once again in the same city as she is in (it sounds silly that way, but it works out really well in the book). The killer stalks "MJK" while continuing to seek other victims of opportunity, looking for another chance at "MJK," where the things that went wrong the first time won't happen again.

I'm not suggesting that this is exactly what happened in the real Ripper story; however, the sense people get that he knew MJK, or that it was personal, may not come from him knowing her intimately, or for a long time. Maybe it was something more along the lines of him trolling for a victim on a previous night, and seeing her on the stroll, approaching her, but being told she was "done" for the night, "off duty." If you think how much it can piss you off when you are trying to get a cab, and one switches on his "off duty" sign as he passes you, or stops for someone half a block ahead of you, who looks like a better tipper, and then you think that this guy is a serial killer, he could have been very angry, but in front of too many witnesses to have just grabbed her arm and dragged her off. He may have stewed about it for a week, and then observed that she had a room, and decided to corner her there.

The "intensity," for lack of a better word, of the mutilations, may have had as much to do with the fact that he had time and privacy to do all that, as the fact that he had a special grudge against her.

[Sox]

As I keep pointing out, you cannot 'grab in the dark' for the left kidney. It is buried deep behind several other substantial structures including the descending colon, the posterior parietal peritoneum and perinephric fat. It simply does not come to hand if you just stick your hand in the abdomen.

We are going to have to agree to disagree here. I mentioned grabbing in the dark for one very simple reason. When a human being cannot see very well they invariably switch to touch, and I think you will agree that the light in some of the murder locations was not the best. It is not beyond the realms of plausibility that the killer was not depending solely upon his vision.

You have to know exactly where it is and then systematically remove or divide the other structures before you can get at it.

Yes, you have to know where it is, agreed, but if you are Jack all you need to do his hack and slash your way to it, and one thing that nobody can argue is that during the attack on Kate Eddowes, the killer did a lot of hacking and slashing.

And incidentally I have done a good few nephrectomies and they didn't take me anywhere near 3 hours so I don't know where you get your figures from. An hour is more like it (still not as fast as Jack).

Well I'm certainly no surgeon, however I am capable of a few minutes research and the opinions of just four medical websites is that a Nephrectomy normally takes 3 hours but can take as little as two. and no, not as fast as Jack, but then Jack was not trying to save a life.

Just read the report on Kate Eddowes, look all the damage done, and then point out exactly where any kind of training or skill is shown. I tend to agree with the assumption that the killer knew where to find the organs, but we also tend to assume that the kidney removed from Eddowes body was in in good condition, why? For all we (or Doctor Brown) know it could have been just as badly hacked as her liver was.

I think the killer had some anatomical knowledge yes, but surgical skill? I'm sorry but I'm just not seeing it.

[Hunter]

Just a small point of interest-

Gordon Brown's written deposition at the Eddowes inquest contained this line:


"It required a great deal of [medical] knowledge to have removed the kidney and to know where it was placed..."

The word 'medical' which I placed in brackets was written and then a line placed through it as a deletion.

It all revolves around Wynne Baxter's controversial theory here. Brown had just previously stated that the kidney was "carefully removed" Now he evidently pulled back a little on this, realizing the implications.

Then he added:

"...Such a knowledge might be possessed by someone in the habit of cutting up animals."