Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[lynn cates]

N O T once more into the breach.

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

I think we've been through all this before. So I see no need to repeat it.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

You know the Y incision may not have been deliberate...

I believe it was Chapman being referred to in this instance. It appears by the not so detailed descriptions that it was an inverted Y, with the flap containing the umbilicus being taken away with the uterus and other parts. The flaps on the outside of the Y were cut away and thrown over the shoulder.

[Mr Lucky]

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

I think we've been through all this before. So I see no need to repeat it.

Cheers.
LC

That's my whole point, what are you repeating it all for ?

[Cogidubnus]

Amazing Incomprehension

Don't you get the Casebook yet Mr Lucky?

If it's you doing it, you're enlarging on a theme and re-iterating a point some readers may have missed.

If someone else is doing it they're just banging the same old drum and falling back on needless repetition.

Irregular verb (intrans):-

I enlarge, he waffles, they bullshit...etc

All the best

Dave

[Errata]

Hello Michael. Thanks.

Here is what he said: "I believe the perpetrator of the act must have had considerable knowledge of the position of the organs in the abdominal cavity . . ."

That may or may not translate to skill.

Cheers.
LC

I vote we standardize some language here. Anatomical knowledge means knowing. Clearly. If you know where the uterus is, or what it looks like, or what it's connected to, congratulations. You have anatomical knowledge.

If you know how surgeons operate, if you know how they cut, how they shelve, how they get to the stuff in the back, akin to knowing how to put together a computer, congratulations, you have surgical knowledge.

If you've had training, if you have practiced incisions, if you have studied cadavers or dead animals, if you have ever put a knife to flesh with the purpose of healing or discovering, then you have anatomical or surgical experience. If you come to the table already knowing how to do something, and can do it with a relative amount of skill, that is experience.

But if you are good at controlling a knife, using it as both a cutting edge and a tool, that is knife skills. And knife skills do not and never have depended on some kind of contact with humans or animals.

What we seem to have here, according to the above definitions, is someone with both anatomical and surgical knowledge, no surgical, medical, or butcher's experience, but with good knife skills. Which is weird. Certainly not impossible because I'm the same way. But since the knowledge and the skill isn't linked by experience, one or the other has to be explained. He had to seek out this knowledge, or attain this skill. Which implies a certain amount of.. not planning, but deliberately feeding the beast so to speak.

[lynn cates]

others

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

Please be aware I was not posting it to you.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Punch

Hello Lynn,

There isn't one, unless it was the one possibly dealt out to poor Kate. I meant that Jack was finally getting to do what gave him his enjoyment and gripping on tightly.

Would like to point out again that lefties were actively discouraged from using their left hands, so if he was a lefty, he would also be a righty, ambidextrous, I mean, so if there were to be confusion on this point, it would point to him being left-handed.

These murders were something new to the medical profession, so could it be that the doctors altered their perception of the killer as the killings progressed? They had no idea why anyone would want to kill in this way, grabbed at the idea of someone wanting to gain money by selling organs (thus the idea of someone with medical knowledge) and then retreated from this theory as the killings went on. "someone who is used to cutting up animals" - hunter, butcher etc. Sticking with the hunter, myself.
Best wishes,

Gwyneth

[lynn cates]

good definitions

Hello Errata. Thanks.

I applaud your definitions.

But it seems we have the proverbial mixed bag. Polly and Annie's slayer seems to have had knife skills--unless Baxter and Bagster were totally confused. Kate's slayer, not.

On the other hand, whoever entered Annie's abdomen was not an accomplished surgeon. But, seemingly, Kate's killer knew something about current medical procedures.

About right?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

enjoyment

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

Well, perhaps he enjoyed his work. But I have no idea how one would know that.

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Hello Errata. Thanks.

I applaud your definitions.

But it seems we have the proverbial mixed bag. Polly and Annie's slayer seems to have had knife skills--unless Baxter and Bagster were totally confused. Kate's slayer, not.

On the other hand, whoever entered Annie's abdomen was not an accomplished surgeon. But, seemingly, Kate's killer knew something about current medical procedures.

About right?

Cheers.
LC

Mostly. Except one part about Eddowes. Once the killer was on the inside his knife skills were quite good. Even if he accidentally divided the colon at that time and cut up the liver some, he did a very good job given the conditions. Like I'm surprised he didn't leave a finger in either Chapman or Eddowes kind of good job. I don't know what happened when he was getting in there, but evidently he settled down or whatever.

knowledge of current medical procedures is a stretch. Skirting the navel may have been accidental, or simply copying something he had seen. Nothing done inside the body is indicative of surgical skill. The uterus was not taken in some recognized style, and we don't know how he took the kidney. And of course we don't know the state of either organ when it came out. If the absence of an organ is more important than the gain of an organ, the uterus might have come out in thirty pieces.

I would say some exposure to surgical technique, but getting Uncle Bill back from an autopsy all stitched up could have sufficed for an intelligent and obsessive sort. It would certainly illuminate where one is supposed to cut.

[curious4]

Excitement

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

Well, perhaps he enjoyed his work. But I have no idea how one would know that.

Cheers.
LC

Hello Lynn,

I don't know, but doesn't one tend to grip on to things tightly when in a heightened state of excitement?

Cheers,

Gwyneth

[Cogidubnus]

Skirting the navel may have been accidental, or simply copying something he had seen. Nothing done inside the body is indicative of surgical skill

.

This surely, if you read his/her posts properly, is exactly what Prosector is suggesting? Yes?

All the best

Dave

[Phil Carter]

A small point

Hello all,

I have a point I would like to ask.

If the killer of Eddowes, Chapman and Nichols and Stride is the same as "Mary Kelly", then each of these women were actually in 5 different ways. Not the method of throat cutting, granted.. but after that.

Stride we can dismiss from the rest of this discussion because no other wounds were found on her that indicates the same man who mutilated Mary Kelly, for example. (Time is an argument there which doesnt need to be repeated here).

Now that leaves Nichols, Chapman, Eddowes and Kelly. Look at the main "cut" ..the longest cut even..how it started and how it finished. Nichols' "opening" is not the same as the others.

That leaves htree. Chaopman, Eddowes and Kelly.

If the main "dissection" (I use the word advisedly and with care) of their anatomies are looked at..they differ quite a bit. Kelly, especially. (Again time id the argument here but not the point I am making for the purpose of the thread.)

The killer of Kelly isnt a "trophy killer" as such, because in the time the killer had available to him, any number of said "trophies" could have been taken.

Specific trophy hunting doesn't apply to Eddowes, because the Chapman attack already secured one "trophy" that was missing with Eddowes. There is no point in deliberately selecting the same trophy when collecting different trophies. This isn't card collecting either. Or stamp collecting the same stamp with a wierd watermark...

Question...

1) What is the MINIMUM STATED amount of time said to have been estimated by a.n.other doctor, physician etc of each of the following victims..

a) Chapman
b) Eddowes
c) Kelly

Surely this would indicate the possibility of similarity on a technical basis.. i.e. speed of methodology.

(I am still seeking the source of the Martin Fido quote of 2 hours on Kelly, btw...anybody know from whence it has come?)




Just some thoughts




Phil

[lynn cates]

right

Hello Errata. Thanks.

You post pretty well says it all.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

gripping story

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks.

"I don't know, but doesn't one tend to grip on to things tightly when in a heightened state of excitement?"

Not sure. Suppose I'll have to consult Aaron Kosminski on that one. (heh-heh--sorry)

Cheers.
LC