Finding Jack the Ripper

[Wickerman]

Hi all, I found the documentary fascinating too, but while the input of experts is valuable, I think there's a sense in which it might be misleading: it is second nature for a surgeon to remove an organ as carefully as possible, in well-lit conditions. Ask him or her whether they could perform such extensive procedures in ten minutes in the dark and they say, inevitably, 'no way!' But the question is always leading: could you locate and extract a kidney/uterus/heart in the dark in a matter of minutes? Try asking a different question: could a lust-murderer with a very sharp knife open up an abdomen, cut through anything in his way, and remove whatever organs randomly took his fancy, while accidentally slicing open intestine in one instance or leaving a third of the uterus in-situ on another occasion?

Hi Henry.
Such an answer was offered (Gordon-Brown & Phillips, I think), but no-one was questioning whether a murderer could make those incisions, of course he could. The question was more concerned with "time", how long would it take such an unskilled person?

Regards, Jon S.

[Henry Flower]

Wickerman, I was referring to the questions posed in a specific documentary, and my point is that I cannot understand how making these slashes and cuts could take more than a few minutes. When surgeons are asked they tend to claim that it would take considerably longer, and no doubt a surgeon would take considerably longer - (I hope so, anyway!)

In short, if we're dealing with a slash and grab merchant, the opinion of an esteemed surgeon as to how long the knife was at work is irrelevant. He doesn't have any more expertise in such an activity than you or I. It would be like asking Picasso how long he estimated it might take to cover a partition wall with satin emulsion.

[Wickerman]

Wickerman, I was referring to the questions posed in a specific documentary,

Yes I understood that Henry, but you were drawing a parallel with the Ripper murders, or at least thats how I read it.

In short, if we're dealing with a slash and grab merchant, the opinion of an esteemed surgeon as to how long the knife was at work is irrelevant. He doesn't have any more expertise in such an activity than you or I.

Yes, after all our hypothesizing & conjecture we really have no clue whether he was a surgeon under pressure or a "Bill Sikes" under the influence...

It would be like asking Picasso how long he estimated it might take to cover a partition wall with satin emulsion.

But they could hardly pull a dosser off the street and ask him "how long would it take you to do this?"
Even with all the inadequacies, the police had to deal with professionals where opinions were concerned.

Regards, Jon S.

[Henry Flower]

You're right Jon - the only alternative to asking a qualified surgeon how long a lust murderer might take to cut a woman's guts up would be to pull 'a dosser' off the street and ask him to guess.

Listen, I wasn't referring to the police in 1888; I was referring to the documentary "Finding Jack the Ripper" specifically, in which Trevor Marriott interviews Dr Ian Calder, a pathologist, who states that 9 minutes would not have been long enough for the injuries to Eddowes. He justifies this with all sorts of reasons that might indeed pose problems to a surgeon - slipperiness, etc - and states how difficult it is to find the kidney. Yes, maybe difficult to find if you're specifically looking for it in the dark. But the odds of cutting open a body and in the course of your mutilations simply coming across it and removing it? I'd say the odds are reasonable. There are a limited number of organs, after all, and we know he wasn't fussy: uterus, kidney, heart... whatever took his fancy. And again, the removal of a uterus without damaging the bladder is stressed as a sign of expertise, while all the other damage to organs and the damaged bladder in another murder are ignored. You see my point?

This is an early 21st century documentary we're talking about, not the investigative options open to the Whitechapel police in 1888.

I think a butcher, someone used to gutting things under the pressure of the clock, would actually have a better idea than any surgeon of how long the process might have taken. Or - even better than a butcher - for the past thirty years at least we've had experts who've interviewed hundreds of serial murderers concerning every aspect of their activities. Why ask a surgeon, then? We have hundreds of other cases with which to compare the Whitechapel murders, but one rarely sees this done in a Ripper documentary. Or alternatively, take a dummy and a knife, re-enact what was done to Eddowes, (as a tense, hurrying killer might do it, not a 70 year old surgeon), and time it. 9 minutes enough? I'll bet it would be.

My point was that eminent pathologists and surgeons are dragged in to suspect-documentaries to bolster theories with the authority of their positions and honours and expertise; but their expertise is not necessarily more relevant to the Ripper case than that of a butcher, or of another lust-killer.

But if you want to bring in the Victorian authorities, fine.

Bagster Philips' estimate of not less than a quarter of an hour for Chapman, even without a struggle, must be a gross over-estimate. Throat cut, no facial mutilations, guts sliced open, bits cut out. A quarter of an hour for that? Maybe so, especially if Jack stopped to smoke a pipe between pulling out the intestine and the uterus... Sit and watch the clock pass 15 minutes, then think how many Chapmans you could have ripped open in that time. I'd say at least a couple.

As my wife has ruefully noted, there's virtually no procedure involving the female body that ever takes me longer than 10 minutes.

[DVV]

Hi Henry

As my wife has ruefully noted, there's virtually no procedure involving the female body that ever takes me longer than 10 minutes.

"C'est toujours les meilleurs qui partent les premiers".

[Hunter]

Hi Henry,

I've discussed this 'expert' issue with Trevor several times on the boards in the past as one who has field dressed deer in all kinds of conditions (including very low light). You're point is spot on. A motivated killer with enough basic anatomical knowledge for the acts perpetrated could do it very quickly.

I do believe this killer had obtained some knowledge because- beside the other organs- the uterus was targeted on three occasions, but it could have been easily acquired by anyone so motivated to perpetuate such atrocities for whatever reason.

One can find an 'expert' to agree with any opinion; just spend a day in court. Ironically, one of the show's own 'experts', criminal psychologist Thomas Mueller, offered a valid counter argument to the other opinions. He suggested that the murderer had simply fantasized about it to such an extent that is was rehearsed in his mind over and over. Thus, he was able to do what he did. Simple thesis, but a plausible one.

[lynn cates]

cutting remarks

Hello Henry.

"Bagster Philips' estimate of not less than a quarter of an hour for Chapman, even without a struggle, must be a gross over-estimate. Throat cut, no facial mutilations, guts sliced open, bits cut out. A quarter of an hour for that? Maybe so, especially if Jack stopped to smoke a pipe between pulling out the intestine and the uterus... Sit and watch the clock pass 15 minutes, then think how many Chapmans you could have ripped open in that time. I'd say at least a couple."

But I wonder whether Phillips were not taking into consideration the skilled hand that he at least THOUGHT he saw in Annie's cuts? Making a clean cut would take more time than a thrust and draw, I should think.

Compare that to the 5 minute estimate for Kate. And she had many more mutilations than Annie.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

How to get started?

Hello David. Mais et si on part avant que l'on commence? (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

One shall be taken, the other left.

Hello Chris. Yes, that is quite plausible.

Do you think there is any chance that he knew he was taking an internal organ but was not sure which one it was? Perhaps also with the kidney?

Cheers.
LC

[GregBaron]

No organ grinder...

9 minutes enough? I'll bet it would be.

You must realize Henry that Trevor is attempting to bolster his theory that the organs were taken elsewhere. He's well aware that the time slot for Kate (assuming viability of the Lawende sighting) is 5 minutes. If someone states it takes more time than that, his hypothesis is reinforced.


You're right about one thing, with enough cash, an expert will state anything...


Greg

[Simon Wood]

Hi Greg,

It all comes down to whether or not people want to believe in the mythical Jack the Ripper with his lightning surgical skills and split-second timing.

If people do, then of course Jack had more than ample time in Mitre Square, and could probably have done it all standing on his head.

If people don't, they rightfully explore other possible scenarios.

As to experts, money has nothing to do with it. The formula is simple. There is a ready acceptance of those experts who fall in with any aspect of the myth and an instant dismissal of those who don't.

Jack the Ripper had no foundation in fact. He existed simply because people believed he existed.

Regards,

Simon

[Hunter]

Hello Chris. Yes, that is quite plausible.

Do you think there is any chance that he knew he was taking an internal organ but was not sure which one it was? Perhaps also with the kidney?

Hi Lynn,

I believe in each of the cases where organs were extracted, the murderer (whether it be the same individual in all or not) knew what he was looking for. But I see no reason for any special skill in any of the cases. There may have been, but the mutilations and extractions only show- at best- that some basic knowledge was acquired and that would be easy to do if someone was motivated. We just don't know what that motivation was or the mental capacity of the murderer in each case.

The uterus is an organ unlike any other that a simple 'layman' might be familiar with- such as a heart, liver, lungs...etc. Someone has to know specifically about the female reproductive 'tract' to some degree. Believe me, I saw 'experienced' hunters mistakingly bring in the bladder of doe deer at checking stations instead of the uterus, which lay just below it. They were participating in a program for game biologists to determine if the doe had been successfully bred during the fall 'rut' and had been given illustrated instructions beforehand to detail the procedure.

If one disregards Dr. Phillips' opinion for a moment and just looks at the way the extraction was described and what was excised as described in the Lancet, in regards to the Chapman case, for instance, the murderer just 'cored' the relevant section out; much like one would core out the heart of a watermelon to get to the good part. He was after the uterus for some reason, but probably not for the reason originally speculated and certainly not with any particular skill displayed. What Philips saw as a purposeful circumvention of the cervix and the rectum may have been nothing more than by accident than by design. In other words, her killer got what he was after, but wasn't too concerned what went with it or what was left behind.

[lynn cates]

time differential

Hello Chris. I agree that the degree of skill in the organ extractions may or may not vary a good deal.

But I keep going back to the mutilations themselves. As a hunter, I'm sure you've seen those who exhibit skill with a knife as compared to those who don't. I cannot carve even a cooked fowl. It comes out in shreds.

If Bagster were serious--and not mistaken--I wonder whether this is what he meant by "skilful mutilations" upon Polly and Annie and "unskilful ones" upon Kate?

It strikes me that, given the many additional mutilations upon Kate, as well as the extra organ extraction, the disparity in time estimates (5 minutes for Kate; 15 for Annie) can be well accounted for by the disparity in knife skill.

Of course, the medicos could have meant something else or just plain have been mistaken.

Cheers.
LC

[Hunter]

That's a good point, Lynn and I do believe the added mutilations are the key in Phillips' assessment of Kate Eddowes' case. But there again, it is added mutilations that would display even more carnage. But actually, Eddowes' uterus was extracted this time without the bladder being disturbed or without any of the external genitalia removed; even more deliberate than with Chapman, in my opinion.

Instead, her killer made cuts and stabs in the groin area. He was apparently able to get at the uterus alone in this instance, as that was all that was removed there. Compared to the way Chapman's was extricated by basically just taking out a chunk, this seems even more remarkable given the conditions the killer had to operate in. The reason why Brown detailed that a 'stump' remained was to drive home the point that the part extracted would be useless for the reasons hypothesized by Baxter at the recently concluded Chapman murder inquest; a topic that was a hot potato right at the time of the so-called double event... and a controversy that Phillips was inadvertently drawn into because his assessment of the killer's knowledge and/or skill was used by Baxter as leverage.

The kidney may have been extracted by chance, but given its location- especially with the body lying on its back- and a lobe of the liver, the stomach and intestines above it, let alone it being encased in 'fatty membrane', I find it remarkable considering all of the other organs available. The intestines could have been lifted out easily enough; I've done this with deer. But the liver is much more rigid, large and firmly attached. The left lobe of Kate's liver was cut; maybe by chance too... but maybe not. The kidney wasn't just grabbed and pulled out; the peritoneal lining on the left side was cut (the kidney is retroperitonial) and the renal artery was cut in facilitating the kidney's removal. That seems deliberately done to me in order to excise it.

Unlike Chapman, Eddowes was slashed and stabbed as well as eviscerated and organs extracted and I believe this distracted Phillips greatly. He was a very good and competent surgeon of long standing, but even he had never seen anything like this; none of them had. If he was correct in the 'skill' displayed in Annie Chapman's killer, he never seemed to explain the more direct removal of Kate Eddowes' uterus nor the apparent deliberate extraction of her kidney. It could be argued that both, in Eddowes' case, evidenced a more deliberate method than what was done to Annie Chapman. Phillips' detailed written summary of his part in the autopsy of Kate Eddowes has not survived. We only have second hand reporting by the press and what he wrote in the summary of the McKenzie post mortem report.

I'm alway willing to give anyone who was actually there the benefit of a doubt. There may be more that Phillips saw in the Chapman mutilations that the Lancet failed to detail. We'll never likely know unless further documents come forth. But, in this instance, with what remains to examine, I think the very practical and conservative Bagster Phillips had attempted in the first case to rationalize what was probably not rational at all and then he was faced with the reality of nothing really tangible in the Eddowes case.

[Henry Flower]

Hunter, a really informative and detailed post that's given me food for thought. Thank you