Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Hunter]

Most interesting, Cris, thanks.
For the sake of precision : right when he decided to possess the kidney (ie : just before he started making some "internal damage in relation to that kidney") could he had "felt" it with his fingers, or was it still out of reach ?

I think it could be done to a large extent with feel. I've done it with deer in the dark countless times. You just have to know where it is and use the tip of the knife. The kidney is more dense than any other organ situated below the diaphragm, like a rubber ball...5 to ten seconds once the viscera is out of the way. That takes longer than actually removing the kidney.

[lynn cates]

Mr. Death

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"and please don't say the blessed C5 or I shall scream"

Wouldn't dream of it. That's old parlance. We have graduated to M5.

Now do try to keep up, else Richard and I shan't allow you to attend the Lord Mayor's fancy dress ball. And that would NEVER do, for, as I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Death has something to say about Englishmen restricted from balls. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

I'm sure yours was just a typo, Cris, but the name - very aptly - is Prosector. The prosecutors around here are all too obvious.

Yes, it was a typo...using a cell phone and at work. My spell check automatically corrected it without my knowing. I had previously spelled his handle correctly.

[lynn cates]

O K

Hello (again) Caroline. Thanks.

"All along your theory has been based on Nichols and Chapman being the more skilfully slaughtered. . ."

Not at all--more skilfully mutilated, as per Baxter's dictum. In other words, his knife cuts were MUCH better than Kate's assassin was able to do.

"whoever killed Eddowes, in the dark and in limited time, knew at the very least what to do"

Delighted to grant this. Of course, Dr. Sequiera claimed it was light enough.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

I have no suspect. Not terribly interested in trying to pin this on someone to be frank. So I don't have a dog in the fight, but I might speak up if I see an obvious flaw in reasoning or practicality.

So that being said, one thing that affects several suspect theories is organization or disorganization. Some suspects battling severe mental illness clearly have problems with being generally disorganized, some suspects (or abettors in the case of Trevor Marriott) would require high levels of organization. And I don't even mean the FBI serial killer definition of organization. I mean the general ability to plan, executive function.

In my own layman's opinion, certain aspect of these murders absolutely point to a loss of control, but they are organized. The Killer(s) had to go in there with some kind of plan. This was not done on a whim.

So I would ask Prosector what kind of organization do you see in these murders? Do you see someone acting on a whim? Someone who has a plan and a goal? Can a person open up a human being and then just decide to take out bits on the spur of the moment, or does he have to go in with a plan? In other words, can someone with a severe deficit to their executive function, their ability to make decisions and order actions in a logical way, do what was done to Chapman and Eddowes?

[caz]

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"and please don't say the blessed C5 or I shall scream"

Wouldn't dream of it. That's old parlance. We have graduated to M5.

I feel quite sorry for all the others whose murders remain unsolved and never seem to get a look in. Why restrict yourself to the M5 (when you are not restricting yourself to the LC2, that is)?

Now do try to keep up, else Richard and I shan't allow you to attend the Lord Mayor's fancy dress ball. And that would NEVER do, for, as I'm sure you're aware, Mr. Death has something to say about Englishmen restricted from balls. (heh-heh)

But what has he to say about Englishwomen?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Yes, it was a typo...using a cell phone and at work. My spell check automatically corrected it without my knowing. I had previously spelled his handle correctly.

Absolutely, Cris. That was why I was sure it was a typo this time. Not quite so sure in Ben's case, as he hasn't been back since his first post to the thread.

Love,

Caz
X

[DVV]

The way some posters hastily accept Prosector's theory as the gospel truth is hysterically funny.
The case is closed and clearly Dr Bond possessed the anatomical knowledge of a horse slaughterer.

[DVV]

I think it could be done to a large extent with feel. I've done it with deer in the dark countless times. You just have to know where it is and use the tip of the knife. The kidney is more dense than any other organ situated below the diaphragm, like a rubber ball...5 to ten seconds once the viscera is out of the way. That takes longer than actually removing the kidney.

Thanks again, Cris.
"Could be done to a large extent with feel."
Interesting, indeed.

[lynn cates]

Pompous?

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

"But what has he to say about Englishwomen?"

Cute.

Cheers.
LC

[Simon Wood]

Hi Cris,

Without wishing in any way to question your expertise at doing it in the dark with a deer, the Mitre Square perpetrator had to be especially silent [taking care not to allow Eddowes to utter a single cry] and thereafter be constantly mindful of unwanted intrusions—passers-by, inquisitive residents [the Pearce and Clapp families on opposite sides of the square], caretaker George Morris and the approaching treads of PCs Watkin and Harvey.

Altogether, not the most ideal mise en scene in which to perform such a dazzling feat of lightning-skilled surgery.

Regards,

Simon

[caz]

The way some posters hastily accept Prosector's theory as the gospel truth is hysterically funny.
The case is closed and clearly Dr Bond possessed the anatomical knowledge of a horse slaughterer.

But Prosector's 'theory' concerns who the ripper was and why he committed the murders. He hasn't identified his suspect - yet - and nobody as far as I am aware has accepted the motive he puts forward, never mind 'hastily'. For example, I see a run-of-the-mill serial killer of prostitutes (or presumed prostitutes) here, rather than any of the more exotic theories, whether they involve a dozen different murderers or one with a special interest in Mary Kelly.

What I am prepared to accept (albeit without seeing a list of Prosector's professional qualifications) is that he appears to know what he is talking about regarding what the killer of at least Chapman and Eddowes needed in terms of dexterity with the knife and anatomical knowledge, whether the killer gained this from personal experience or observation of similar procedures (see his initial post on page 1 for details).

Maybe that makes me naive or gullible, but at least no pet theory of mine is harmed whether he is right or wrong, while I find it hysterically funny to see the strong resistance only from those who have invested in theories that don't work too well if he happens to know his stuff.

Tell me, how much experience did Dr. Bond have of cutting into bodies, alive or dead, extracting kidneys or wombs and sewing them up again? I thought Prosector said he was a surgeon in the Outpatients' department.

Love,

Caz
X

[Hunter]

Certainly a hunter is not working under the same risks as the murderer of any one of these victims (unless he is a poacher)... but the same principles would apply if someone is bent in doing what was done.

Someone took the time to murder and eviscerate Catherine Eddowes in Mitre Square. All of that took considerably more time than the short time required to remove the uterus and a kidney. Unless it is now suggested that all the murderer did was just kill her.

[caz]

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.

Here we are.

Love,

Caz
X

[Trevor Marriott]

But Prosector's 'theory' concerns who the ripper was and why he committed the murders. He hasn't identified his suspect - yet - and nobody as far as I am aware has accepted the motive he puts forward, never mind 'hastily'. For example, I see a run-of-the-mill serial killer of prostitutes (or presumed prostitutes) here, rather than any of the more exotic theories, whether they involve a dozen different murderers or one with a special interest in Mary Kelly.

What I am prepared to accept (albeit without seeing a list of Prosector's professional qualifications) is that he appears to know what he is talking about regarding what the killer of at least Chapman and Eddowes needed in terms of dexterity with the knife and anatomical knowledge, whether the killer gained this from personal experience or observation of similar procedures (see his initial post on page 1 for details).

Maybe that makes me naive or gullible, but at least no pet theory of mine is harmed whether he is right or wrong, while I find it hysterically funny to see the strong resistance only from those who have invested in theories that don't work too well if he happens to know his stuff.

Tell me, how much experience did Dr. Bond have of cutting into bodies, alive or dead, extracting kidneys or wombs and sewing them up again? I thought Prosector said he was a surgeon in the Outpatients' department.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz
I think you and other are missing the point here and that is this prosector whoever he may be has said he could not remove the organs in the time window we are working with. We have other experts who also say the same. Now that must say something.

Dr Brown didn't even bother to carry out the experiment and I notice that his colleagues experiment took place before the inquest and I note Dr Brown thought fit not to mention the experiment and the time factor at the inquest.

And whilst on the subject of this experiment I note that the details appeared in a Sheffield newspaper a city some 200 miles from London yet not a mention of something as important as this in any London paper.

Another clear case of using the press to prop up a theory !

In my opinion that should be the end of it and shows that the killer did not remove the organs at the scene so it matters not whether the killer was a butcher, a baker of the candlestick maker whoever he was he murdered the women and carried out the mutilation that is all.