Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[RockySullivan]

Errata you have me thoroughly convinced you are serial killer! Lol that being said I like the two knives theory. If the throat cutting would dull the blade too much to do the abdominal mutilations, two would make sense. What if the woman were strangled/knocked out, then the ripper proceeded with the eviscerations, finally afterwards he cut the throat. Would the knife be sharp enough to cut the throats after the abdominal mutilations? Is this is possible alternative scenario to the two knives theory?

[Errata]

Errata you have me thoroughly convinced you are serial killer! Lol that being said I like the two knives theory. If the throat cutting would dull the blade too much to do the abdominal mutilations, two would make sense. What if the woman were strangled/knocked out, then the ripper proceeded with the eviscerations, finally afterwards he cut the throat. Would the knife be sharp enough to cut the throats after the abdominal mutilations? Is this is possible alternative scenario to the two knives theory?

I could never be a serial killer. I'm half Jewish half Catholic. The guilt is extraordinary. I get embarrassingly apologetic if I just startle someone.

But I also try stuff out. I don't know if it's a product of living in the South where mayhem is just always a little closer to home, but if I wonder how hard it is to cut through a human windpipe, I get a pig head and try. Or I call my fiance in to play victim while I see if I can draw a line on his neck while he is lying facing away from me (he hates that). I think everyone should try things out. Some things sound great in theory, but then when you actually try it you realize that in order for it to work you would need to phase through a solid object. And since I don't think we have a Marvel SuperVillain roaming Victorian England, we can probably say with a reasonable amount of certainty that it had to happen a different way.

I think, though I cannot swear, that the neck wounds had to come first. What blood evidence we know about does indicate the heart still beating when the throats were cut.

I also think that cutting the throat was just as or more important to the killer than getting in the abdomen, despite the trophy taking. The throat cuts are major overkill. Like cutting off a hand to cure a hangnail. It's more than making sure they were dead, or dead enough. In every case (barring Stride, and maybe even with her I just can't tell) he made damn sure he cut through the voice box. Which a: is super hard to do, and I have a lovely scar on my hip from trying to do just that on my fetal pig in 9th grade biology and b: really is unnecessary. But not only did he open the windpipes of these women, he completely severed them. And with a dull blade, he doesn't sever the windpipe at all. He just pokes at it for awhile.

And even without windpipes, necks are not easy things to cut. And you know this because people use cleavers to cut the heads off chickens. And a chicken's neck is maybe an inch in diameter. They had to invent guillotines in order for the condemned to actually have their heads taken off in one strike, as opposed to the usual three to a dozen strikes needed by headsmen. And serial killer movies always show people being dismembered with power saws, because it really takes a power saw unless you are willing to spend 5 hours taking off a head with a hack saw. Not easy. You don't do that to someone who is technically already dead, unless you HAVE to. He clearly had to. And it wasn't to dispose of the body.

That said, knives totally dull when cutting the abdomen. Mesenteries are tough. Really tough. It's like a web keeping your innards upright. And every organ has connective tissue not only to the mesentaries, but also to other organs. They bear a ton of weight without sagging. The uterus has I think 7 major connections, tissue that is roughly the texture and tensile strength of raw silk. Now ask any fabric seller, and they will tell you that silk is the scissor killer. Some of the connections are actually ligaments, which is like web strapping. I don't think a person can even break skin on the neck after going in an abdomen. Much less sever the windpipe. I'm not even sure that he could get through all of the mutilations of the abdomen on a single knife. He hit bone. He cut through mesentaries, which surgeons back then and today use surgical scissors to get through. He cut muscle crosswise. That knife should have been wrecked even with the switch from the blade used on the neck. There may have been a third knife. My guess is that he used a dagger in the abdomen because it allowed him to simply turn the knife to get a fresher edge. And we know he used one on Eddowes at least.

[RockySullivan]

Wow if every thing you've said is accurate about the knives becoming too dull, how is that no one else picked up on this? Maybe they have but I've never read it. You'd think the police at the time would realize that one knife would become too dull? Or has everyone whose every thought about this case in anyway just known as little about knives and cutting bodies as me? Surely someone at the time must've picked up on this if it's true?

[Wickerman]

Wow if every thing you've said is accurate about the knives becoming too dull, how is that no one else picked up on this? Maybe they have but I've never read it. You'd think the police at the time would realize that one knife would become too dull? Or has everyone whose every thought about this case in anyway just known as little about knives and cutting bodies as me? Surely someone at the time must've picked up on this if it's true?

Wear and tear of the blade has been discussed before, but a killer with an assortment of knives is not a popular suggestion. And, there is something morbidly humorous about a killer standing over his victim sharpening his knife with a butchers steel.

This issue of the knife dulling after some use might have been considered by a surgeon like Dr. Phillips, or Bond, especially with respect to Mary Kelly's extensive mutilations.
Perhaps Errata might know if a single scalpel would stay sharp through the mutilations of Mary Kelly.

[RockySullivan]

Wear and tear of the blade has been discussed before, but a killer with an assortment of knives is not a popular suggestion. And, there is something morbidly humorous about a killer standing over his victim sharpening his knife with a butchers steel.

This issue of the knife dulling after some use might have been considered by a surgeon like Dr. Phillips, or Bond, especially with respect to Mary Kelly's extensive mutilations.
Perhaps Errata might know if a single scalpel would stay sharp through the mutilations of Mary Kelly.

I understand it's not a popular theory, and while I know nothing about knives the deep throat cuts do logically sound like they would dull the blade too much for the mutilations.

[Rosella]

JTR was obviously used to using knives. How? Was it his trade --work as a butcher, horse slaughterer, hunter, fish filliter, cook or chef, taxidermist are obvious picks?
Of course, he could have been a postman or gas fitter or car man etc who simply collected knives and was facinated by them, becoming skilled as a result of his hobby.
However, surely it's more likely that he would have used knives for hours every day as part of his job?

[RockySullivan]

JTR was obviously used to using knives. How? Was it his trade --work as a butcher, horse slaughterer, hunter, fish filliter, cook or chef, taxidermist are obvious picks?
Of course, he could have been a postman or gas fitter or car man etc who simply collected knives and was facinated by them, becoming skilled as a result of his hobby.
However, surely it's more likely that he would have used knives for hours every day as part of his job?

Right and a job that would give him practice removing abdominal organs? Does that job exist or did he practice on his own? How could he practice on his own? A riddle indeed

[Errata]

Perhaps Errata might know if a single scalpel would stay sharp through the mutilations of Mary Kelly.

I don't know honestly. My last surgery was far less extensive, involved more potential bone contact, and about half a dozen scalpels were used. Surgical teams don't let scalpels get even a little dull.

I know an exacto blade dulls beyond use cutting a two inch stack of paper in half. I have no idea how that translates to human bits.

It's possible. I don't think terribly likely, and never mind I know from experience that running around with a scalpel is fraught with its own perils. Like stabbing yourself in the thigh a ton. And I had an exacto once cut through my pocket to escape.

[Rosella]

Serial killers have been known to torture and mutilate animals in their childhood and youth. Hearts, kidneys could be removed. Plus, taxidermists, for example, remove inner organs. Butchers certainly do.

[RockySullivan]

Are there any animals who have a similar enough anatomy that the ripper could learn to remove a humans kidney, uterus so quickly with no light? That's why in was thinking hunter as they immediately after murdering an animal the hunter "dresses" which I assume means slices open the gut and pulls out the intestines? A deer seems like they could have a similar anatomy to a human. The "deerstalker" sighting for instance could point to a hunter couldn't it. What kind of knives would a hunter use and what time of person (beside prince eddy) might be a hunter in whitechapel. I don't believe the victims were random & just unluckily the ripper happened upon them. I think the ripper stalked them the way a hunter would his prey. I think the MO was similar to a hunter and maybe the ripper was an expert. I see signs of this in the killing with the stalking and the mutilations, the throat cut. It's just a theory but it seems more likely than a butcher or a doctor because a hunter has the added advantage of the skill in stalking a victim that dr. Butcher lacks.

[RockySullivan]

A hunter also is the only one I can imagine being able to work that fast in the dark. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field..._%28hunting%29
Take a look at the first two pictures on the Wikipedia article for field dressing. By golly if I doesn't look exactly like the ripper murders! I mean exactly! I think the ripper was a deer hunter.


"First an incision is made around the anus so that it moves freely from the rest of the carcass. Then a cut is made from that incision to the breast plate to allow the stomach and intestines to be carefully removed. Now the anus can be removed by pulling it down or using a specialized tool called a butt-out."

I remember reading details of one description possibly eddowes and it sounded exactly like this. sliced up from rectum to breastplate.

[Hunter]

Lol...

[Simon Owen]

A hunter also is the only one I can imagine being able to work that fast in the dark. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field..._%28hunting%29
Take a look at the first two pictures on the Wikipedia article for field dressing. By golly if I doesn't look exactly like the ripper murders! I mean exactly! I think the ripper was a deer hunter.


"First an incision is made around the anus so that it moves freely from the rest of the carcass. Then a cut is made from that incision to the breast plate to allow the stomach and intestines to be carefully removed. Now the anus can be removed by pulling it down or using a specialized tool called a butt-out."

I remember reading details of one description possibly eddowes and it sounded exactly like this. sliced up from rectum to breastplate.

"...Such a knowledge might be possessed by someone in the habit of cutting up animals." - Dr Frederick Gordon Brown. Brown also thought the cuts made to Eddowes's face were butchers' cuts.

[Errata]

Are there any animals who have a similar enough anatomy that the ripper could learn to remove a humans kidney, uterus so quickly with no light?

Most mammals have uteruses in roughly the same place, but they do not remotely resemble a human uterus. Most mammals have a forked uterus, with two horns resembling either an anchor or sheep horns. This structure accommodates litters. Because of the nipple rule we know that the only mammals that are not designed to have litters are primates. So it's us and monkeys, and most people haven't seen the inside of a monkey either. Anyone operating under the assumption that a human is built like a sheep is never going to find the uterus. Not just by looking. So the killer did not find the uterus based on familiarity with animal anatomy. He did it the old fashioned way.

[RockySullivan]

Most mammals have uteruses in roughly the same place, but they do not remotely resemble a human uterus. Most mammals have a forked uterus, with two horns resembling either an anchor or sheep horns. This structure accommodates litters. Because of the nipple rule we know that the only mammals that are not designed to have litters are primates. So it's us and monkeys, and most people haven't seen the inside of a monkey either. Anyone operating under the assumption that a human is built like a sheep is never going to find the uterus. Not just by looking. So the killer did not find the uterus based on familiarity with animal anatomy. He did it the old fashioned way.

I see. The victims are posed the same way a field dresser would pose a deer. If he was a hunter could he have learned the specifics of the removing. The human uterus from the torsos?