Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Sox]

Hi Sox,

Isn't that the wrong way round? Pigs and humans would have been practised on by medical students, but how many apprentice butchers would ever have practised on a human - or for instance got into the habit of avoiding a sheep's navel to make it easier to sew up afterwards?

Love,

Caz
X

Well that was my point Caz :P A butcher would have an idea of where the organs where in a human (the knowledge), but would be unfamiliar with the extraction of those organs (lack of skill). In fact, the organs of a pig which are most unlike the human are, the liver, intestines and colon. The uterus and kidney however are, surprise surprise, very similar.

''The intestines were drawn out to a large extent and placed over the right shoulder''

''Behind this, the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about two and a half inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut.''

''The intestines had been detached to a large extent from the mesentery. About two feet of the colon was cut away.''

The of course we have.....

''The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut through. I would say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it. ''

''The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments''

I am not saying that Jack the Ripper was a Butcher. What I am saying however, is that I do not believe we should rule out someone with anatomical knowledge of animals, i.e pigs, as the killer of these women.

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Yes, those. Could be from strangling; could be from clamping.

But why ANY bruises if you are using a scarf or cord?

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn.

Are you asking why the killer would grasp her head to steady it while he sliced the throat?

[lynn cates]

too much pressure

Hello Jon. Thanks.

Close. If she is completely subdued, why so much pressure? One can steady another just by moving the head to the desired location.

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Close. If she is completely subdued, why so much pressure? One can steady another just by moving the head to the desired location.

Lynn,

Why not a lot of pressure? There may not be a rational reason that you are looking for.

Mike

[caz]

Hello (again) Caroline.

". . . for instance got into the habit of avoiding a sheep's navel to make it easier to sew up afterwards?"

Excellent reason to believe that Kate's killer was NOT a butcher. Heartily concur.

Cheers.
LC

Hi Lynn,

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what happened with Chapman's navel then, because I thought her killer also cut round it in some manner, rather than straight through. And when Phillips talked about the use of the knife indicating 'great anatomical knowledge' in this case, do you not suppose he was referring to human anatomy rather than that of a sheep?

Love,

Caz
X

[caz]

Ah! My mistake. Didn't know he was a 19th c serial killer.

Well the clues are there for the taking, Lynn, in the well-documented history of serial murder. We can lead you to them, but we can't make you pick up on them - or enjoy that light bulb moment.

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

idea

Hello Michael. Thanks.

Very well--you're on. What's your idea here?

Cheers.
LC

[caz]

A butcher would have an idea of where the organs where in a human (the knowledge), but would be unfamiliar with the extraction of those organs (lack of skill).

Hi Sox,

Tell that to Lynn. He doesn't think his butcher suspect would have lacked the skill needed to extract the organs taken from Chapman.

I am not saying that Jack the Ripper was a Butcher. What I am saying however, is that I do not believe we should rule out someone with anatomical knowledge of animals, i.e pigs, as the killer of these women.

I'm not saying rule out someone with anatomical knowledge of animals. Much easier, though, for a killer who also knew his way round a human body. Animals don't need to be kept quiet, slaughtered and gutted in secrecy and almost total darkness, and the ones I come across don't have several layers of clothing to contend with either. That's why, for me, it smacks of an agenda to argue for a butcher, when it would more reasonably have been someone who had made it his business to study the anatomy of the species he was most interested in damaging/possessing/experimenting on (add or delete to taste).

Love,

Caz
X

[lynn cates]

skill

Hello Caroline. Thanks.

My understanding is that Annie was entered by a "Y" shaped incision.

I take it that the remarks about "anatomical knowledge" referred to his knowing where things were located and, perhaps, his skill at extracting some of them.

I think the salient quote from Baxter (via Bagster?) is in the Stride inquest where reference is made to skilful mutilation, as opposed to unskilful (Kate).

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

timely suggestion

Hello (again) Caroline. Thanks.

Well, you may be right. Perhaps we CAN look at a modern day phenomenon and do a backwards historical extrapolation--even though time is thought to be asynchronous.

But, in my puny mind, it seems more fruitful to look on past events as, in some way, influencing the future.

However, best may be looking at EACH case on its own merits WITHOUT looking for modern day examples as corroboration.

But what do I know?

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael. Thanks.

Very well--you're on. What's your idea here?

Lynn, first, too much pressure is the same as enough pressure. It means it was effective. But why more than what was needed? Because in the past, there wasn't enough pressure and something went amiss. Too much then was enough.

But other possibilities include things you may not want to hear because they can never be proven to be true, and yet are still great possibilities. These have to do with inebriation, mood, different emotion about the victim, a personal injury that made things awkward, many many possibilities. You see, nothing can be definite here.

Mike

[lynn cates]

butchers and such

Hello (yet again) Caroline. Thanks.

"He doesn't think his butcher suspect would have lacked the skill needed to extract the organs taken from Chapman."

Well, there are butchers and there are butchers. Jacob was, of course, a journeyman. He was also employed as a "cutter up." And, please to recall, he claimed to be taking sheep heads and innards for resale.

". . . it would more reasonably have been someone who had made it his business to study the anatomy of the species he was most interested in. . . "

But how could we know which species he was interested in? (But, I will admit that Kate's killer had learned a bit about human body cavity entry.)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

Agendas R Us.

Hello Michael. Thanks for that.

"Lynn, first, too much pressure is the same as enough pressure. It means it was effective."

Yes, but if one is "out," one need only steady the head--a finger would be sufficient.

"But why more than what was needed? Because in the past, there wasn't enough pressure and something went amiss. Too much then was enough."

Past? As in "before Polly"?

"But other possibilities include things you may not want to hear because they can never be proven to be true, and yet are still great possibilities. These have to do with inebriation, mood, different emotion about the victim, a personal injury that made things awkward, many many possibilities. You see, nothing can be definite here."

But ALWAYS those possibilities seem to focus on trying to explain away the vast differences between the first two and the last three. And yet I am supposed to be the one with an agenda?

Cheers.
LC

[The Good Michael]

Hello Michael. Thanks for that.

"Lynn, first, too much pressure is the same as enough pressure. It means it was effective."

Yes, but if one is "out," one need only steady the head--a finger would be sufficient.

"But why more than what was needed? Because in the past, there wasn't enough pressure and something went amiss. Too much then was enough."

Past? As in "before Polly"?

"But other possibilities include things you may not want to hear because they can never be proven to be true, and yet are still great possibilities. These have to do with inebriation, mood, different emotion about the victim, a personal injury that made things awkward, many many possibilities. You see, nothing can be definite here."

But ALWAYS those possibilities seem to focus on trying to explain away the vast differences between the first two and the last three. And yet I am supposed to be the one with an agenda?

By using the term 'vast differences' one might surmise an agenda. I don't surmise one. I do think you are trying to follow alternative paths because every other one has been unsatisfactory for you. Unfortunately, I believe that any answers to the details you'd like to understand, will never be understood until the murderer(s) is found. It's a chicken before the egg thing, but that's what I think. And I don't see any vast differences. Every football match is different because even though players may be the same on a given team, different strategies are applied because conditions and other teams are always different, wind, rain, cold, mood, psychology, all these things make every football match somewhat different though we can still see some of the trademarks of the individuals. I think serial killing must be similar.

Mike

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Sox,

Tell that to Lynn. He doesn't think his butcher suspect would have lacked the skill needed to extract the organs taken from Chapman.



I'm not saying rule out someone with anatomical knowledge of animals. Much easier, though, for a killer who also knew his way round a human body. Animals don't need to be kept quiet, slaughtered and gutted in secrecy and almost total darkness, and the ones I come across don't have several layers of clothing to contend with either. That's why, for me, it smacks of an agenda to argue for a butcher, when it would more reasonably have been someone who had made it his business to study the anatomy of the species he was most interested in damaging/possessing/experimenting on (add or delete to taste).

Love,

Caz
X

There is a big difference between someone knowing their way around a human body and then in practice being able to remove these organs in the way they were removed given the condition of the body and the light available.

If you think the killer had a design on the organs then how can you explain why he the felt the need to rip open the abdomens an act likely to damage any organs he might be seeking. Why not simply cut the throats and perform the surgical acts which you seem to quick to suggest he did.

Please don't say the organ removal was an afterthought because that doesn't stand up either. If it is suggested that the same killer killed Eddowes and Chapman then the removal of the organs from Eddowes cant be an afterthought because he had already done that to Chapman !

So if it was the same killer he had to have had a design on the organs in which case I refer back to my comments in Para 3 above.


I have said this before take a look at how the bodies were left Chapman with two legs up, Eddowes with one leg up. The position of the bodies is not conducive to a killer removing organs the legs in those positions would be of a hindrance.

There are so many common sense factors to show this didn't happen I cannot see why you and others cant seen them, or perhaps you don't want to see them ?