Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[lynn cates]

think so

Hello Dave. As I read his/her posts, I think so.

Cheers.
LC

[Mr Lucky]

Someone else's thread

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

Please be aware I was not posting it to you.

Cheers.
LC

The reason I'm following this thread is due to my interest in what the OP (40 posts) has to say, unfortunately the thread has just become another vehicle for your (100+ posts) endless nonsense based around Baxter's use of the word 'skill'.

Clearly if the OP has a 'suspect' in mind then he's not really concerned about theories centred around multiple killers, so perhaps you could, now that you made us aware of your view point, stop endlessly repeating it or start another thread elsewhere

Thanks

[lynn cates]

pair o' docs

Hello Phil. Wonder if Bond was meant, not Phillips?

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

power of choice

Hello Lucky. Thanks.

If you don't like my "nonsense," why on earth do you read it? Don't you have the power of skipping it and reading what you like?

By the way, what "we"? Why not speak for yourself?

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Grasping

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

Hello Lynn,

Spare my blushes! Poor man lost his grip on everything in the end! Neverthess, I see you have grasped the general idea. (hehe)

Cheers,

Gwyneth

[lynn cates]

offhanded remark

Hello Gwyneth. Thanks for that offhanded remark.

Cheers.
LC

[curious4]

Parrot

And not one mention of Dorothy Parker's parrot!

[Errata]

.

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

All the best

Dave

Yes. Merely restating in the specific. Except for one bit.

The invagination of the colon in Kate Eddowes. If done one way, it is a surgical technique, although I don't know if it was back then (I think it was not, but I could be wrong). If done the other way, it could also be surgical technique, or it could have been a natural result of the muscles still functioning to a certain extent after death. If the killer did it, that indicates a level of knowledge that I would think requires actual experience. I can't imagine anyone doing that without the previous knowledge that it can be done and has some benefit. If it was a natural function of the body (and it does happen on a fairly regular basis) then it indicates nothing.

[Phil Carter]

Yes. Merely restating in the specific. Except for one bit.

The invagination of the colon in Kate Eddowes. If done one way, it is a surgical technique, although I don't know if it was back then (I think it was not, but I could be wrong). If done the other way, it could also be surgical technique, or it could have been a natural result of the muscles still functioning to a certain extent after death. If the killer did it, that indicates a level of knowledge that I would think requires actual experience. I can't imagine anyone doing that without the previous knowledge that it can be done and has some benefit. If it was a natural function of the body (and it does happen on a fairly regular basis) then it indicates nothing.

Hello Errata,

Then we come down to two possibilities, no?

1) It was done with surgical knowledge and was deliberate.

2) It was not done with surgical knowledge and was deliberate.

I repeat my question previously again. Has anyone found the article or reference that Martin Fido used in his book claiming that the minimum time used by MJK's killer was two hours? I would really like to see a reference to this. Thank you.
(Minimum time estimation is crucial to comparing the victims as of being mutilated by the same killer.)



Phil

[caz]

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.

Hi Trev,

I don't see it that way at all. I see a violent fantasist who first and foremost wanted to experiment with his knife on female flesh. He didn't necessarily want to take away undamaged organs, it may have been more to do with the shock value to the public of whatever he managed to do at the scene in the time available.

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 !

Clearly it's not black and white, though, and we don't know how alcohol could have affected his choices on each occasion and what he could achieve.

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.

But he need have had no particular 'design' on the organs he removed, beyond showing the world and himself that he could do this much and get away with it. It might explain why he didn't bother taking MJK's uterus or a kidney away with him; leaving her innards round the body was satisfaction enough.

Love,

Caz
X

[Sox]

It might explain why he didn't bother taking MJK's uterus or a kidney away with him; leaving her innards round the body was satisfaction enough.

Interesting point. We tend to surmise that the killer left No 13 without his 'trophies', but what if the entire scene were a trophy?

'The viscera were found in various parts viz: the uterus & Kidneys with one breast under the head'

I do not think that is a coincidence or a copycat. It could well be an extreme form of staging, he keeps the things of significance on the bed, what he does not need, he puts out of the 'scene' on the table.

Back to anatomical knowledge.

Nichols
'On the left side of the neck, about 1 in. below the jaw, there was an incision about 4 in. in length, and ran from a point immediately below the ear. On the same side, but an inch below, and commencing about 1 in. in front of it, was a circular incision, which terminated at a point about 3 in. below the right jaw. That incision completely severed all the tissues down to the vertebrae. The large vessels of the neck on both sides were severed. The incision was about 8 in. in length'.

Chapman
'He noticed that the throat was dissevered deeply.; that the incision through the skin were jagged and reached right round the neck:

The throat had been severed as before described. the incisions into the skin indicated that they had been made from the left side of the neck. There were two distinct clean cuts on the left side of the spine. They were parallel with each other and separated by about half an inch. The muscular structures appeared as though an attempt had made to separate the bones of the neck'.

Eddowes
'The throat was cut across to the extent of about six or seven inches. A superficial cut commenced about an inch and a half below the lobe below, and about two and a half inches behind the left ear, and extended across the throat to about three inches below the lobe of the right ear.

The big muscle across the throat was divided through on the left side. The large vessels on the left side of the neck were severed. The larynx was severed below the vocal chord. All the deep structures were severed to the bone, the knife marking intervertebral cartilages. The sheath of the vessels on the right side was just opened. The carotid artery had a fine hole opening, the internal jugular vein was opened about an inch and a half -- not divided'.

Kelly.
'The neck was cut through the skin and other tissues right down to the vertebrae, the fifth and sixth being deeply notched. The skin cuts in the front of the neck showed distinct ecchymosis. The air passage was cut at the lower part of the larynx through the cricoid cartilage'.

Those injuries go well beyond 'cutting the throat'. I believe that there is enough evidence in those autopsy reports to give reason to think the killer was trying to remove the head of his victim. In 1888 there was no surgical procedure for removing the head of a human being.

This has been discussed before I realize but, I think it significant to the question of anatomical knowledge. Decapitation requires the application of force, for example. When a butcher takes the head off a pig he will cut down the the vertebrae with a knife, then use a cleaver, then go back to a knife, simple.

It looks to me like our killer has tried to do it 'surgically', not knowing how difficult it actually is to remove the head in practice.

One other small matter that has been gnawing at me. The killer removes the womb/uterus from two victims, he also places it in, what I'm assuming to be, pride of place by/under Mary Kelly's head. Bear with me this will soon be over As we all know he takes time to cut two inverted triangles on Eddowes cheeks, in symbology the inverted triangle has been a symbol that represents the womb for centuries, just a thought.

[Wickerman]

As we all know he takes time to cut two inverted triangles on Eddowes cheeks, in symbology the inverted triangle has been a symbol that represents the womb for centuries, just a thought.

Sox.
You will find the cuts on the cheeks that you refer to are described as flaps of skin. Which means the knife sliced across the cheeks with the flat blade parallel to the face, raising a flap of skin which in fact is oval in shape.

There never were any incised triangles.

[Sox]

Sox.
You will find the cuts on the cheeks that you refer to are described as flaps of skin. Which means the knife sliced across the cheeks with the flat blade parallel to the face, raising a flap of skin which in fact is oval in shape.

There never were any incised triangles.

Can you point me in the direction of a source for this please, I've never heard that before. I took it from the post-mortem description... 'There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin, forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half'. .... that they were triangular.

[Michael W Richards]

I recall that Sam Flynn was one of the first to suggest that the chevrons were collateral damage when he sliced the nose. I dont know that any theory like that has been published though.

There are a few issues with the cutting done on Kate Eddowes when it comes to addressing skill.....the slicing of her nose, and perhaps her cheeks as a result, and the sectioning of her colon, which was placed between her arm and body. And the jagged upward cut. And the cut around the navel....for what purpose? Why cut open the colon if he's experienced? It may have led to his unexpected need for additional cloth to clean up. Why deface the corpse? Where is the defacing of the corpse with Annie Chapman? Why not cut her face too?

Seems to me, if Kates killer wanted her partial uterus and kidney, and he had the skills Annies killer did, we would see similar results, but likely with an intact uterus....as was taken from Annie. We should see similar steps in the process. And similar levels of skill.

As Ive said, the issue of skill is relative to the particular murder being analyzed, not to all five of the 5 Canonical Murders. Within those 5 murders there are unskilled, uneducated knife movements, ..if one uses the murder of Annie as the barometer, then only Kate Eddowes murder additionally has some of the requisite skill and knowledge present. But with some serious discrepancies.

No skill needed or shown by Liz Strides killer, and no objective, no skill and emotional aspects to the cuts made on Mary Kelly.....(as a side note Ive come to believe that there was no actual Mary Jane Kelly, but that was the name the woman in room 13 was using. It would explain why no-one been able to trace her roots by her story told to Barnett.)

And if she was living under an alias, that might raise the question why. Maybe she didnt want to be found....but was.

Cheers

[Wickerman]

Can you point me in the direction of a source for this please, I've never heard that before. I took it from the post-mortem description... 'There was on each side of cheek a cut which peeled up the skin, forming a triangular flap about an inch and a half'. .... that they were triangular.

Sox.
There are two issues here.
Back in 2004 we had an indepth discussion about this because some theorists were trying to claim the killer had used the tip of his knife to draw two triangles, one on each cheek.
This is what I thought you were referring to.

The autopsy describes flaps of skin, as I commented on, which are the product of passing the knife behind the tissue. The product is a half-oval shape because the slice was not complete.
Why the term triangle is used is unclear, we have a photo of the wounds and an enlargement clearly demonstrates the shape of the wound on the right cheek.



The bridge of the nose is also cut through indicating the knife passed across her face as if to slice her face off.



I'm not saying he tried to do this but the wounds are consistent with this being the intent.

I recall that Sam Flynn was one of the first to suggest that the chevrons were collateral damage when he sliced the nose. I dont know that any theory like that has been published though.

Gareth (Sam) was not aware the subject had already been discussed on Casebook in October 2004, or at least that is what Gareth told me.

Gareth published his theory later in 2006, which only goes to show that the theory has merit for two people to arrive at the same conclusion quite independently.