Jack's Escape Route?

[Wickerman]

Then maybe you will answer what I am sure Trevor won't, if we are going by the "care" standard as being indicative of medical training, how is it explained that he botched the removal of the uterus? One organ is sloppily cut, missing a portion of it. One is removed "with care" meaning, I presume in its entirety, since I don't see how "care" can be established in a body where the majority of the organs had cuts to some degree or the other. Especially the ones easily accessed. I believe the remaining kidney was untouched, and therefore was likely not excavated in the frenzy....

First off, I'm only talking about indications - I'm not saying he had to be, but there have been other abdominal cuts mostly explained by Prosector when he first joined Casebook that are difficult to explain if he had no medical training.

See, I think your argument assumes perfection - ie; if he was a professional then every cut had to be perfect.
In the real world, no. How many surgeons have left medical instruments inside a patient? How many Mechanics made a mistake on your car? How many dentists pulled the wrong tooth? How many Chef's screwed up the meal?
This killer could have been distracted, someone slamming shut a window, a footstep in the passage, a voice in a nearby yard, he is in a stressful situation and any of which could have caused a slip of the wrist as he had to suddenly look up...

Didn't Phillips basically answer your question at the time?

If you recall Coroner Baxter asked Dr. Phillips if there were signs of medical knowledge.

Baxter - Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?
Phillips - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.

Why do we decide that...given the majority of organs were cut/stabbed and definitely not treated "with care", the one time he manages to excavate an organ in it's entirety, he's clearly got medical knowledge? The liver was stabbed repeatedly, is that indicative of care and medical knowledge?

Being focused on one or two specific organs doesn't require care for all the other organs. There isn't a lot of room inside an abdomen, something else is likely to get slashed because you are pressed for time.

[Ally]

See, I think your argument assumes perfection - ie; if he was a professional then every cut had to be perfect.
In the real world, no.

See, I think the assumption that he was a medical doctor based on one incident of "perfection" is what the inverse claim dictates. It's not "perfection" when you get everything else WRONG or sloppy and one time you get it correctly. I have never taken a dance class in my life, but every now and again, I manage against all odds and balance impairment to execute a perfect pirouette. Does that mean I'm a professionally trained dancer? Of course not. My one incidence of perfection slapped up against all my numerous mistakes in execution would not lead ANYONE observing me to conclude that I had any kind of formal training at all.

But some people look at a SINGLE incidence of good technique, stacked against a whole catalogue of bad technique and decide: formal training.

Didn't Phillips basically answer your question at the time?

If you recall Coroner Baxter asked Dr. Phillips if there were signs of medical knowledge.

Baxter - Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?
Phillips - I think there was. There were indications of it. My own impression is that that anatomical knowledge was only less displayed or indicated in consequence of haste. The person evidently was hindered from making a more complete dissection in consequence of the haste.

I think this is a ridiculous assertion on Doc Phillips part. So the multiple cuts and stabs of the liver (for no discernible cause) were because of haste? One doesn't have to keep poking at a liver if you're after a kidney. There's no indication of skill in what was described done to it. The other organs being punctured, is not haste, it's a mess.

So once again: one perfect pirouette stacked against all the other shoddy work, doesn't indicate training, but the absence of training.

Being focused on one or two specific organs doesn't require care for all the other organs.

This of course rests on the presumption that he was focused on those two organs, just because he took those two organs. There is nothing to indicate that he was in anyway focused on any specific organs. Repeatedly stabbing the liver, doesn't indicate a focus on getting to the kidney. If he was skilled, in anyway AND focused on the kidney, the liver could have been swiped away easily instead of him just him sitting there poking at it repeatedly like a kid with a stick.

There isn't a lot of room inside an abdomen, something else is likely to get slashed because you are pressed for time.

And again, if the kidney were his focus, and he had medical training, it would have been far easier to quickly slice and toss it all out, like he did with the intestines, to focus on his objective instead of just sitting there poking everything in the abdominal cavity with his knife repeatedly.

Anyone with actual medical training, and an objective to get the kidney, would have sliced out the organs in the way, tossed them, exactly like he did with the intestines, and then gotten to business. He didn't do that. Which indicates the kidney was not a particular objective nor did he have training.

[DJA]

Then maybe you will answer what I am sure Trevor won't, if we are going by the "care" standard as being indicative of medical training, how is it explained that he botched the removal of the uterus? One organ is sloppily cut, missing a portion of it. One is removed "with care" meaning, I presume in its entirety, since I don't see how "care" can be established in a body where the majority of the organs had cuts to some degree or the other. Especially the ones easily accessed. I believe the remaining kidney was untouched, and therefore was likely not excavated in the frenzy.

Why do we decide that...given the majority of organs were cut/stabbed and definitely not treated "with care", the one time he manages to excavate an organ in it's entirety, he's clearly got medical knowledge? The liver was stabbed repeatedly, is that indicative of care and medical knowledge?

He removed most of her uterus "with the exception of a small portion".

The majority of organs were not cut/stabbed other than to access the kidney.

The removal of cholesterol from the eyelids ,which was research conducted by Gull and Sutton,was most likely conducted with a small scalpel indoors with light.

The chevrons (and nose cut) denote the maxillary sinuses,the infection points of rheumatic fever which is caused by strep pyogenes which resides in the small intestines.



He has cut into her inguinal lymph nodes,which suggest she had cancer,hence the removal of her uterus.


Then we have the main cut diverting around the navel.That denotes someone who was very well trained,probably training others.Hence the chalk around start of teaching term.

I'll hand things back to the peanut gallery.

[Aethelwulf]

I'll hand things back to the peanut gallery.

what I find amusing about your posts is that you have this habit of using images that give the impression you have some sort of superior theory and are looking down your nose at everyone else. you did it yesterday as well with the brains image and numerous other times before that.

And then you come out with load of pure nonsense about sutton and sinuses. This really belongs with lewis carroll and sickert. it is worse than Maybrick by a long stretch.

[Ally]

He removed most of her uterus "with the exception of a small portion".

Which is not perfect.

The majority of organs were not cut/stabbed other than to access the kidney.

Incorrect.

The removal of cholesterol from the eyelids ,which was research conducted by Gull and Sutton,was most likely conducted with a small scalpel indoors with light.

Unverified speculation.

The chevrons (and nose cut) denote the maxillary sinuses,the infection points of rheumatic fever which is caused by strep pyogenes which resides in the small intestines.

Unverified speculation.

He has cut into her inguinal lymph nodes,which suggest she had cancer,hence the removal of her uterus.

Unverified speculation.


And the stabs to the liver which are completely unnecessary to ...anything, completely ignored, and especially the fact that if he was after a kidney, it would have been far easier to excavate the cavity and then go, which anyone with medical knowledge would be aware of. But so what's your claim... he was both excavating her sinuses and her uterine cancer and her kidney and obviously he had to have somehow magically known she had all these diseases to target her in this way.

Okay. Sure.

[Wickerman]

See, I think the assumption that he was a medical doctor based on one incident of "perfection" is what the inverse claim dictates...

It isn't 'one' example though. Prosector listed several examples to consider.
It may be as well to make clear, we have opinions from other medical men, even at the time of the murders, that there were no indications of medical knowledge. Which should not come as a surprise. Isn't this one reason why patients today are encouraged to get a second opinion when considering serious medical matters?
Professionals do not always agree.
Dr. Bond's opinion is often quoted on this very issue, even though the only victim he ever saw was Mary Kelly. Yet it appears Bond was not a practicing surgeon, it was an appointment to supervise an outpatient surgery department. Had he ever practiced surgery?

Prosector pointed out that the abdomen is like a well of sloppy organs all trying to sink to the lowest point, the cavity between the pelvis, which is where you need to be.
There are a little over 22 feet of small intestine to get out of the way, thats your first obstacle.

Then we have the detail described by Dr Brown, that "the sigmoid flexture had been invaginated into the rectum".
This is a necessary step in order to prevent faeces spilling out into the abdomen prior to removing the colon.
Who, outside a medical school, is going to know that?

Those who think our killer was some local no-body never considers what this guy knew, or the details of what he actually did.

We also read that in the case of Eddowes, the abdominal slice skirted around the belly-button, but on the right side, as is normal surgical procedure.
What local Yob'o is going to know or even care about that?

There were a few specifically surgical practices performed on Eddowes that we do not see on any of the others.
Not that the killer of Eddowes was different, no this killer was telling the police surgeons - I know what I am doing, and I believe Phillips, Brown & a couple of others recognised this.

[Trevor Marriott]

See, I think the assumption that he was a medical doctor based on one incident of "perfection" is what the inverse claim dictates. It's not "perfection" when you get everything else WRONG or sloppy and one time you get it correctly. I have never taken a dance class in my life, but every now and again, I manage against all odds and balance impairment to execute a perfect pirouette. Does that mean I'm a professionally trained dancer? Of course not. My one incidence of perfection slapped up against all my numerous mistakes in execution would not lead ANYONE observing me to conclude that I had any kind of formal training at all.

May I refer you back to the murder of Chapman where the killer is alleged to have taken not only the uterus but the fallopian tubes still attached, which as you are joined to the utrerus, now there is no way that organ was removed using a cut and slash method you keep proposing, that shows whoever removed that knew excatly what they were doing.

But some people look at a SINGLE incidence of good technique, stacked against a whole catalogue of bad technique and decide: formal training.

This is why I suggest that these organs taken from Chapman and Eddowes were not by the same hand, and to back that up we know that the bodies were taken to two different mortuaries, and we have modern day medical evidnce to show that the uterus from both victims were removed using two different methods.

I think this is a ridiculous assertion on Doc Phillips part. So the multiple cuts and stabs of the liver (for no discernible cause) were because of haste? One doesn't have to keep poking at a liver if you're after a kidney. There's no indication of skill in what was described done to it. The other organs being punctured, is not haste, it's a mess.

So you are better qualified to give a medical opinon than the doctor who was at the scene?

This of course rests on the presumption that he was focused on those two organs, just because he took those two organs. There is nothing to indicate that he was in anyway focused on any specific organs. Repeatedly stabbing the liver, doesn't indicate a focus on getting to the kidney. If he was skilled, in anyway AND focused on the kidney, the liver could have been swiped away easily instead of him just him sitting there poking at it repeatedly like a kid with a stick.

Well it could be argued that as he had alreday taken a uterus from Chapman why would he want another, why not take another organ or a limb?

And again, if the kidney were his focus, and he had medical training, it would have been far easier to quickly slice and toss it all out, like he did with the intestines, to focus on his objective instead of just sitting there poking everything in the abdominal cavity with his knife repeatedly.

Would he have been able to locate the kidney in almosy total darkness from a blood filled abdomen and remove it, bearing in mind he would need to first locate the renal fat in which the kidney is located and then have to cut the kidney out of the renal fat

Anyone with actual medical training, and an objective to get the kidney, would have sliced out the organs in the way, tossed them, exactly like he did with the intestines, and then gotten to business. He didn't do that. Which indicates the kidney was not a particular objective nor did he have training.

He would have needed medical knowledge to be able to know where the kidney is located, it would have been easier and quicker if he had that knowledge to simply cut out the renal fat containing the kidney and took it away with him.

I am posting a previoulsy posted picture showing the kidney encased in its renal fat as can be seen the kidney sits flush inside the renal fat it is not an organ that you can reach inside an abdomen and touch, it has to be cut out of the renal fat

This pic also shows how small the kidney is when encased in the renal fat and the pic highlights the difficulty in locating it and being able to take hold of it to be able to cut it out, especially as there was no retraction used to keep the abdominal wall open to enable such a removal

There is no way the killer would have been able to remove these organs at the crime scene give the time available to him and the crime scene conditions

As to the time required Dr Phillps in the case of Chapman stated it would have taken him under a quarter of an hour and that just to remove a uterus

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[GBinOz]

There were a few specifically surgical practices performed on Eddowes that we do not see on any of the others.
Not that the killer of Eddowes was different, no this killer was telling the police surgeons - I know what I am doing, and I believe Phillips, Brown & a couple of others recognised this.

In Kelly's case, the heart was removed from the pericardium via the abdominal cavity, a little known technique taught by Virchow.

Cheers, George

[Abby Normal]

good to see that the debate has shifted from trevors ludicrous theory that the killer didnt have enough time to remove organs at the scene to the proper one of does the evidence of the bodies wounds indicate medical or surgical experience. finally lol.

Its one of the most important and debated questions of the whole case IMHO. One of the main reasons is, because if the answer is yes, then it points to suspects like Chapman, druitt and tumblty.

Im still on fence with this one. At the very least I think the evidence is that the killer had extensive knife skills and anatomical experience.

While modern experts like Nick warren and poster Prosector have shown things that point to surgical experience, there has always been one thing thats always struck me about the wounds-namley, In photos and sketches many of the cuts, like the vertical cut to the midsection, look very jagged and unsophisticated. would someone with surgical experience have made cuts like this? wouldnt the incisions be more "clean" if it was someone with surgical experience??

[Ally]

In Kelly's case, the heart was removed from the pericardium via the abdominal cavity, a little known technique taught by Virchow.

Cheers, George

How would someone remove a heart, EXCEPT through the abdominal cavity, in a bedroom, in absence of a rib spreader?

[Trevor Marriott]

good to see that the debate has shifted from trevors ludicrous theory that the killer didnt have enough time to remove organs at the scene to the proper one of does the evidence of the bodies wounds indicate medical or surgical experience. finally lol.

Ludicrous hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm If it is I dont know how to describe the naiviety by you and others in readily dismissing such a ludicrous theory

If the organs were removed at the mortuary then that medical knowledge you seem to want to postulate would still be present because the organs were not found missing until the post mortem was conducted so that suggestion that the killer had medical knowledge doesnt stand up, and what you and other proponents of the killer taking these organs is that the bodies were taken to two differnet mortuaries, and two different methods of the removal of the uterus were seen, amd not forgetting that female reprodcutive organs were highly sought after for medical research, and the previousy documented examples of the trade in bodies and body parts involving body dealers and corrupt mortuary attendants

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Elamarna]

Im still on fence with this one. At the very least I think the evidence is that the killer had extensive knife skills and anatomical experience.

While modern experts like Nick warren and poster Prosector have shown things that point to surgical experience, there has always been one thing thats always struck me about the wounds-namley, In photos and sketches many of the cuts, like the vertical cut to the midsection, look very jagged and unsophisticated. would someone with surgical experience have made cuts like this? wouldnt the incisions be more "clean" if it was someone with surgical experience??

From my own experience of non human organ removal, the cuts are very amateurish.
The long cuts appear jagged, because they are not a single cut, but a series of what amount to stabs and rips, the knife never being fully removed.

Steve

[Wickerman]

... In photos and sketches many of the cuts, like the vertical cut to the midsection, look very jagged and unsophisticated. would someone with surgical experience have made cuts like this? wouldnt the incisions be more "clean" if it was someone with surgical experience??

Could it be the cuts you are comparing the wounds to were made by a scalpel?

In an operating room surgical cuts are certainly more clean cut, there's no indication this killer used a scalpel. In fact the width & depth of the stab wounds to the liver & other organs suggest otherwise. Didn't Phillips once describe the type of blade used?
When skin is tight it cuts clean, but if the skin is loose and ripples up against the force of a knife, especially as it would over the stomach, then the end result is a jagged cut. A knife will never be as sharp as a surgical scalpel.

[Elamarna]

How would someone remove a heart, EXCEPT through the abdominal cavity, in a bedroom, in absence of a rib spreader?

Hebbert clearly says that the killer attempted to enter the thoracic cavity via the ribs, but failed.
That left the only route to be via the diahram. As you say Ally, how else would he remove the heart


Steve

[Elamarna]

Could it be the cuts you are comparing the wounds to were made by a scalpel?

In an operating room surgical cuts are certainly more clean cut, there's no indication this killer used a scalpel. In fact the width & depth of the stab wounds to the liver & other organs suggest otherwise. Didn't Phillips once describe the type of blade used?
When skin is tight it cuts clean, but if the skin is loose and ripples up against the force of a knife, especially as it would over the stomach, then the end result is a jagged cut. A knife will never be as sharp as a surgical scalpel.

HI long time,
While your comment is indeed completely accurate, the method to my eye is very poor, it's not in my opinion that of someone with surgical skill or experience.
Sometimes I consider its not even that of a butcher.
Knowledge of the location of organs is a different issue of course.

Steve