Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[Ben]

Hi Abby,

The type of lodging house that boasted sleeping cubicles for a couple of extra pence would most assuredly have qualified as a "private place". He would have had a four-wall visual shield. In addition, it was very common for lodgers to bring home their food to prepare and eat in the large kitchens, and for the poorer classes, this consisted chiefly of less-than-choice cuts of meat. One offal cooker amongst a great many would not have attracted any particular attention. The organs that the ripper excised would not have been very large, and they certainly wouldn't have been conspicuously gore-soaked. The reason I reject the idea that he had a private house is that he could so easily have taken his victims there, in the same way that Nilsen, Gacy and Dahmer did. We can dispense with the idea that he'd be splashed with blood as he made his escape, because the weight of medical evidence suggested this would not have been the case.

To do what he did under those conditions i dont think could have been done by someone just fishing around blind

I think that's precisely what he did, Abby - fish around in the dark, slashing and grabbing at whatever felt interesting. This, at least, was the general impression of three out of four doctors who examined the body of Kate Eddowes. The killer may have had some skill with the knife, but that's only because he had some practice using one on previous victims. Like all serial killers, he probably became more proficient at his grisly craft through experience. I tend to discard the notion of a butcher or slaughterer being responsible. On at least one occasion, the killer clearly attempted to remove the victim's head...and failed. Since skeletal dismemberment is an important part if butchery, it would take one lousy butcher to botch that job.

All the best,
Ben

[Hunter]

Maybe my question is deemed irrelevant or maybe I'm on someone's ignore list, but I'll ask it again...

Certainly true of Kate and MJ. Their killings were quite crude and unskilful.

Exactly what was the evidence of anatomical knowledge or skill in the Nichols and Chapman murders that was lacking in the Eddowes and Kelly murders?

Does anyone expect someone who didn't, at least have some knowledge of the female anatomy- either by some experience or a curiosity that provoked some study on the murderer's part- to excise, specifically, an internal organ such as a uterus, on three occasions; sweeping it intact with part of the external vagina in the first instance, removing it without disturbing the bladder in the second, and deliberately placing the specific organ under the victim's head in the third.

Just rationally think about that for a moment.

As a hunter, I've participated in several surveys that required the removal of the uterus of a doe deer to be taken to biologists to determine if fertilization had taken place. Even with diagrams passed out to hunters to illustrate the procedure required, you wouldn't believe the mess our biologists had to contend with at the checking stations. Often, the animal's bladder was brought in, instead of the uterus... or the vagina was cut out with just the lower portion of the birth canal with no uterus attached.

[FrankO]

I think that's precisely what he did, Abby - fish around in the dark, slashing and grabbing at whatever felt interesting.

Hi Ben!

So you think that someone who was so obviously interested in what was to be found under his victims’ skirts and who was willing to risk his very life for mutilating the female body, didn’t know a thing about what he was so interested in? He obviously at least knew there were organs inside and where to find the female bits.

BTW, how are you these days?

All the best,
Frank

[FrankO]

Hi Abby,

..., possibly charming, at least-to put the victims at ease.

I don’t know if I agree with this. He needn’t have been charming, or actively able to put his victims at ease. Seeing that these unfortunates were desperate, it would have been enough for him to show them the money and not act too suspiciously. We can’t say anything beyond this.

Above avg intelligence, street smart, more cunning than lucky.

The fact that he chose to kill and especially mutilate women out in the streets, where people could walk into him at any given moment, doesn’t particularly point to an above average intelligence, so I think he was rather a practical & street smart killer who took some measures not to get caught.

All the best,
Frank

[Ben]

Hi Hunter,

With regard to the location of the uterus, the "knowledge" evinced by its removal was no greater than that possessed by the average man on the street, in my opinion. In Chapman's case, it was accompanied by extraneous innards, and with Eddowes, the removal was heavily botched. It's difficult to attach much significance to the placement of the uterus in the Kelly murder, since various other organs were placed in equally unusual locations. It was the informed opinion of Dr. Sequeira that Eddowes' killer had no design on any particular organ, and I agree with him. It's not as though the killer had a great many options, in terms of which organs to remove, in the region of the lower abdomen. I'm not sure quite what you mean by "sweeping it intact". It would have taken more than one cut (at top and bottom) to excise the organ, and one of those cuts didn't demonstrate any skill at all.

Hi Frank,

I think it was precisely because of his lack of knowledge that he was interested. The mutilations strike me as being consistent with an exploratory approach. As I suggested, he may have had some knowledge, but certainly no expertise above and beyond that of the average Joe.

All well here thanks, Frank! Good to see you around here again.

All the best,
Ben

[lynn cates]

botched

Hello Ben. You are right that the uterus removal in Kate's case was botched. But even a doctor sometimes has an unsuccessful surgery.

But Wynne Baxter noted that the mutilations in Polly and Annie's cases were "skillful"; in Kate's case, "unskilful."

What did he mean? Try having two people carve a fowl for holiday. One knows how to handle a knife and carve the bird. The other ends up with crumbs.

Put it another way. Whose mutilations were more extensive, Annie's or Kate's? What was the time estimate for Annie? What for Kate?

See what the medicos meant?

Cheers.
LC

[Malcolm X]

Hi Hunter,

.
Hi Frank,

I think it was precisely because of his lack of knowledge that he was interested. The mutilations strike me as being consistent with an exploratory approach. As I suggested, he may have had some knowledge, but certainly no expertise above and beyond that of the average Joe.

All well here thanks, Frank! Good to see you around here again.

All the best,
Ben

yes, but the Average Joe wouldn't have what it takes to do this, he'd be sick all over the place, let alone want to.

this is why among other things, that MJK must be a Ripper victim, i can not imagine 2 mutilators at work here, simply because only an experienced killer would have what it takes to rip her apart like that...and two mutilators killing at once and yet not knowing each other and coming together in the same location and the same part of the world, by sheer fluke; would be virtually impossible.

these aren't murders from a violent thug or an ex- boyfriend, they're too gruesome for this, this is something quite different, but i'm not sure what

[FrankO]

I think it was precisely because of his lack of knowledge that he was interested. The mutilations strike me as being consistent with an exploratory approach. As I suggested, he may have had some knowledge, but certainly no expertise above and beyond that of the average Joe.

The thing is, Ben, that I got the impression that you thought he didn't have any knowledge, but what you write here pretty much sums up my view! He was interested in the female body, knew something of it and the mutilations were some morbid way of exploring it further. Glad to have straightened it out.

Cheers,
Frank

[Hunter]

That's what I thought too, FrankO.

Now its back to morbid curiosity that enabled someone to attain some knowledge as a result and then exercises this even further in a most morbid way.

And no... it doesn't narrow down the field much at all. He could have been a nobody who's normal adolescent curiousity about the female body morphed with some reason for hatred at the same time and a fantasy for acting it all out that became a reality.

Stop being so rational, FrankO.
Its getting scary.

[Wickerman]

The issue of 'skill' is quite murky, I don't recall any suggestion of skill in connection with the Nichols murder, but Dr. Phillips saw enough in the Chapman case to clearly answer the specfic question posed by the Coroner.

Q: Was there any anatomical knowledge displayed?

A: - 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.

Indications of anatomical knowledge, but not to the degree of being skilled.

Dr. Gordon-Brown made a similar observation with regard to Eddowes:

Q: Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill?

A: - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.

Dr. Sequeira does not contest this observation when he adds:

He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.

Great skill no, but basic knowledge of anatomy?, - yes.


And with respect to the removal of the kidney:

Q: Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge?

A: - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.

Q: Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals?

A: - Yes.

The removal of the kidney is a distinct clue because you cannot see or feel a kidney. The kidney is enclosed in a misshaped fatty membrane, it looks and feels like exactly what it is, a lump of fat.
Cracking open the fat to get at a lambs kidney is what a butcher does every day.

You don't need to be a surgeon to do what the killer did, but the ordinary 'Joe' does not know anything close to enough to carry out the mutilations we see on Chapman & Eddowes.
Any ignorant 'Ruff' with a knife could have murdered Nichols, Stride & carved up Kelly, because there was no ability displayed in any of those crimes.

Regards, Jon S.

Note: straight out of school I served an apprenticeship at Dewhurst Butchers in the UK back in the '70's, so this issue of anatomical knowledge is something I can recognise.

[lynn cates]

both cases

Hello Jon. Thanks for that.

At the summary of the Nichols inquest, Baxter said:

". . . in the two recent cases the instruments suggested by the medical witnesses were not so different. Dr. Llewellyn said that the injuries on Nichols could have been produced by a long-bladed instrument moderately sharp. Dr. Phillips was of opinion that those on Chapman were by a very sharp knife, probably with a thin, narrow blade at least 6 in. to 8 in. in length, probably longer. The similarity of the injuries in the two cases was considerable. There were bruises about the face in both cases, the head was nearly severed from the body in both cases, and those injuries again, had in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge." (Ultimate Companion p. 47.)

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Thanks for that.

At the summary of the Nichols inquest, Baxter said:

". . . The similarity of the injuries in the two cases was considerable. There were bruises about the face in both cases, the head was nearly severed from the body in both cases, and those injuries again, had in each case been performed with anatomical knowledge." (Ultimate Companion p. 47.)

Thankyou Lynn, yes I have to wonder just what "injuries" Baxter is referring to on Nichols. Wolf & myself had an extensive debate many years ago on each "rip" on her abdomen and I cannot see Baxter referring to these "rips" as indicative of anatomical knowledge.
Unless more was said of those injuries at the inquest than was printed in the press?

Regards, Jon S.

[lynn cates]

skill

Hello Jon. Quite possibly so.

I'm sure you have seen a skilled knifesman carve meat; same with a tyro like me. Huge difference.

I daresay that is what is referenced here. How else could Annie's mutilations require 15 minutes and Kate's be estimated at 5, even though there were many more?

Cheers.
LC

[Wickerman]

Hello Jon. Quite possibly so.

I'm sure you have seen a skilled knifesman carve meat; same with a tyro like me. Huge difference.

I daresay that is what is referenced here. How else could Annie's mutilations require 15 minutes and Kate's be estimated at 5, even though there were many more?

Cheers.
LC

Concerning the extraction of the kidney, Dr. Gordon-Brown said:

"The way in which the kidney was cut out showed that it was done by somebody who knew what he was about."

If the kidney had been pulled out he would not have said "cut out". The fact it was cut out when it can quite easily be pulled out speaks to procedure. This is consistent with someone who knows how to remove a kidney correctly and applies his knowledge even in the face of time constraints.
A local ruff would just rip the fatty mass from the body, if he could see it in the first place.

Even after the abdomen has been sliced open the contents mostly remain insitu, its not like you can see the location of the kidney in front of you.
The removal of the kidney is the interesting detail that speaks to "a degree of anatomical knowledge".
With the exception of the removal of the kidney, there is no surgical knowledge evident anywhere else in these murders. I only mention this because I suspect some confuse anatomical knowledge with surgical knowledge. JtR was not a surgeon, but he was something above your local "Bill Sykes".

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

You don't need to be a surgeon to do what the killer did, but the ordinary 'Joe' does not know anything close to enough to carry out the mutilations we see on Chapman & Eddowes.

But Jon, three out of four doctors who examined the body of Kate Eddowes did not believe that the mutilations were beyond the capabilities of the average man on the street in terms of anatomical knowledge. Skill with a knife is something completely different, and there is no doubt that the killer had had enough "practice" by the time he murdered Eddowes to have acquired some moderate knife skills. Significantly, Sequeira did not believe that the killer had any designs upon a specific organ, which militates very strongly against the idea that the killer specifically sought a kidney. Had it been othwerwise, he would almost certainly have accessed them through the victim's back, i.e. the easier way by far. A butcher is necessarily informed on the subject of skeletal dismemberment, which the ripper demonstrably was not.

Another crucial point that tends to be overlooked - why would a killer who does have anatomical skill waste precious time being "careful" about the removal of a kidney? To me, that defies all logic. Surely, in light of the murder and subsequent mutilations he inflicted on the corpse, there was absolutely incentive for him to be dainty and "procedure-conscious" about removing a kidney? What on earth is the point in taking the time to remove a kidney "correctly" from a women you've just murdered and mutilated? No, it appears that only Dr. Brown detected any appreciable knowledge on the part of Eddowes' killer, and he was outnumbered three to one. Quite simply, I go with the majority view.

Dr. Phillips was the only person to detect surgical "skill" in the case of Annie Chapman (only), and also thought that she and Eddowes were killed by different people.

Hi Frank - thanks for the clarification. Agreed whoeheartedly!

Hi Lynn,

The trouble with Baxter is that some of his conclusions were simply wrong. For example, his assertion that there were no "meaningless" cuts could not possibly have been true.

All the best,
Ben