Did he have anatomical knowledge?

[Abby Normal]

It is quite astonishing to think that people still believe the killer took the organs from the victims at the crime scenes given all that we know about the light and the condition of the bodies and the time factor !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Astonishing!!

Good grief

[Harry D]

Because they wanted to distance themselves and their profession from a maniacal killer.

Thanks for reading between the lines.

[mklhawley]

Perhaps they were not in the medical profession any more.

But, it wouldn't matter if he had a specific agenda as I stated above.

[Wickerman]

It seems that ripperologists who themselves are in the medical profession suggest not just medical knowledge but indeed surgical skill in the cases of Chapman and Eddowes...
Cant see any reasonable reason to disagree with them... Unless of course you're trying to push a theory about someone without the skills...
Seems we have this from prosector now and from nick warren. I remember nick giving an excellent demonstration at a conference regarding the degree of difficult in locating the kidney...
Given the darkness of mitre square, quite astonishing really

There was also a Dr. Ind on Casebook some fifteen years back who recognised genuine medical skills in the cuts & the words of the doctors who described the mutilations.
I don't recall any one of these professionals advocating that the killer was a practicing surgeon though.

[Trevor Marriott]

Absolutely, if the serial offender motive was hatred of women, blaming them for his kidney and heart disease and JTR taking out was makes women different than men, the womb.

Quite the message.

Mike

I don't think there was a specific motive he was intent on murder and these women were easy prey for him at that time of the morning.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Trevor Marriott]

There was also a Dr. Ind on Casebook some fifteen years back who recognised genuine medical skills in the cuts & the words of the doctors who described the mutilations.
I don't recall any one of these professionals advocating that the killer was a practicing surgeon though.

It all gets back to knowledge, the ordinary man in the street would not know where to start and would be inhibited by the darkness and the blood filled abdomen and the time factor. So we can agree that whoever and wherever the organs were removed the remover had to have some anatomical knowledge.

The cut and slash theory doesn't even bear mentioning

https://www.trevormarriott

[Errata]

The easiest explanation would be that the killer had knowledge, had skill, acquired both from the same place, and had enough practice under his belt that he was able to utilize both his skill and his knowledge in a swift and careful fashion.

And for all I know that's absolutely what happened.But there are other options.

There are some questions about technique with the actual incisions. Which is a whole other thing. But I think that someone like me could have done this. I have anatomical knowledge, and yes my schooling was more thorough in biology than the average Victorian, but I had it anyway because my dad was a doctor, and my mom was a nurse. I've never met a doctors kid who didn't pick up quite a bit from sharing a house with a medical professional. And I learned to cut from being an artist. And from a short stint as a cook.

Knowledge and skill from two different places. And maybe you might expect a short learning curve where he puts everything together, but he might be smart. Or he might have gone over it so many times in his head that when it came time to act he was comfortable with it.

It's not one thing. It's not knowledge/skill. A certain amount of knowledge is requirement A. Which is separate from requirement B, which is knife skill. It may well be that both requirements were filled by the same thing. Like medical school, or being a butcher. But it may be that the two requirements were filled separately. Or one led to the other. And a lot of people collect skills and knowledge over a long period of time. A book here, a conversation there. When skill and knowledge come together, that's expertise. Whether you got it from a school or you got it from putting a bunch of things together in your head, it doesn't matter. It's still expertise.

And maybe that's why the experts have a hard time pinning down whether or not this guy was a doctor, or a butcher, or professional of any kind. Because some of it is there. And some of it isn't. And they can't think why that is, because they aren't thinking that he may not be one thing. He may be five thing that come together to make this killer who is very like a skilled professional, but not actually one as they would define it.

Or the bastard is in fact a doctor. I don't know.

I just think that looking for a single source of this guys qualifications might be about as useful as looking for a single source of his motive. He might have had one bad experience and decided to mutilate prostitutes, but more that likely it was a ton of things going either slightly or catastrophically sideways that led to this.

[Wickerman]

There are some questions about technique with the actual incisions. Which is a whole other thing. But I think that someone like me could have done this. I have anatomical knowledge, and yes my schooling was more thorough in biology than the average Victorian, but I had it anyway because my dad was a doctor, and my mom was a nurse.

In drawing the knife down the abdomen, would it have occurred to you to avoid the umbilicus?
It is a seemingly insignificant detail, yet the implication may appeal more to the professional than the interested layperson.

The kidney was also, if I recall, removed "with care", and at night, with the apprehension of being interrupted or discovered.
The ability or knowledge to locate and remove a kidney is one thing, but to remove it in a professional manner (with care) surely speaks more to a practiced hand?

[curious4]

Can we be quite sure he was alone? Could he have had an accomplice with a bullseye lamp to give him some light and keep a lookout? There were two men near to Liz Stride. And the pardon was offered to someone who had knowledge of the murders but not actually involved. I know people had better night vision then, but Jack wasn't superhuman, even if that is part of the legend. I'm not sure, but I think a bullseye or dark lamp would only give light where it was directed, so that it might not necessarily have been visible from a distance.

Best wishes
C4

[Hunter]

...Or he might have gone over it so many times in his head that when it came time to act he was comfortable with it...

And that could well have accounted for much of what happened. Fantasy repeated with a little of acquired knowledge fueled by that fantasy...i.e.- Ed Gein. Might account for some similarities as well as inconsistencies.

The problem will always remain since there are really too few samples in this series to draw any definitive conclusions. Skill/knowledge or not, these were less than ideal conditions to demonstrate much...except possibly how quick the eviscerations were done. And despite what Phillips said about Chapman, I believe they were done quickly...even Kelly possibly under 15 minutes.

That so many in the medical profession seem - then and now - in awe of how quick the mutilations on Eddowes were inflicted shows they have no idea how a lot of haste and a little skill can be managed in low light. A poacher would laugh at them.

[Hunter]

It all gets back to knowledge, the ordinary man in the street would not know where to start and would be inhibited by the darkness and the blood filled abdomen and the time factor.

Anyone who has eviscerated a carcass (and you obviously have not) knows there is very little blood in the abdomen once the cardiovascular system ceases to function, unless a major vessel (all which lay against the spine) has been severed. Kate Eddowes' killer would not have contended with much blood until the renal artery was severed during extraction of the left kidney ( which can be totally done by feel because the kidney is more firm than any surrounding organs.)

[Errata]

In drawing the knife down the abdomen, would it have occurred to you to avoid the umbilicus?
It is a seemingly insignificant detail, yet the implication may appeal more to the professional than the interested layperson.

The kidney was also, if I recall, removed "with care", and at night, with the apprehension of being interrupted or discovered.
The ability or knowledge to locate and remove a kidney is one thing, but to remove it in a professional manner (with care) surely speaks more to a practiced hand?

It would have occurred to me, especially If I hadn't yanked the waistband of the skirt down so there were buttons right there. Which might more explain the mess made of Eddowes more than avoiding the belly button. She was wearing like, three layers of buttons. It was like a minefield.

I couldn't take out a kidney like that. Not that fast, probably not at all. Maybe a different method, but it wouldn't look that neat. On the other hand, I'm not saying this guy didn't have practice. But he could have gotten it from stray dogs. It's not a perfect analog, but the basic anatomy is generally the same.And strays are easy to dispose of. Nor is it unusual for serial killers to explore their interest in anatomy on helpless animals. Sometimes merely dissecting those already dead, sometimes sadistic and brutal torture.

Parts of these murders not only suggest a more practiced hand, they seem to demand it. But other parts seem to exclude it.The kidney removal is expert. Cutting the colon is a rookie move. The incision into Annie Chapman is relatively neat. The incision into Katherine Eddowes looks like he chewed his way in, though he did skirt the belly button. And the cuts in Nichols are both purposeful and purposeless at the same time. Like he was trying something, but who knows what because it seems random. The throat cuts are personal. Even rage induced. The other mutilations are pretty clinical.Though some are well executed and some aren't. Why would a professional take part of the bladder?

This guy isn't obviously anything. And I'm not saying that we should rule out the idea of him being some kind of professional. But I don't think it's a given. So looking at other options doesn't hurt.

[Trevor Marriott]

Anyone who has eviscerated a carcass (and you obviously have not) knows there is very little blood in the abdomen once the cardiovascular system ceases to function, unless a major vessel (all which lay against the spine) has been severed. Kate Eddowes' killer would not have contended with much blood until the renal artery was severed during extraction of the left kidney ( which can be totally done by feel because the kidney is more firm than any surrounding organs.)

Of course there has to be blood in the abdomen even after death anyone severing arteries or blood vessels randomly with a long bladed knife would cause blood to run into the abdomen.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Hunter]

Have you ever opened up a carcass with a knife, Trevor?

[Abby Normal]

And that could well have accounted for much of what happened. Fantasy repeated with a little of acquired knowledge fueled by that fantasy...i.e.- Ed Gein. Might account for some similarities as well as inconsistencies.

The problem will always remain since there are really too few samples in this series to draw any definitive conclusions. Skill/knowledge or not, these were less than ideal conditions to demonstrate much...except possibly how quick the eviscerations were done. And despite what Phillips said about Chapman, I believe they were done quickly...even Kelly possibly under 15 minutes.

That so many in the medical profession seem - then and now - in awe of how quick the mutilations on Eddowes were inflicted shows they have no idea how a lot of haste and a little skill can be managed in low light. A poacher would laugh at them.

sorry you two
Ed gein? Poacher?

You both could be no further from the truth.

I think your professions may have biased your analysis.