Let's narrow down some Ripper 'facts'

[Hunter]

Now this is the way a proper debate should be conducted and everyone has made some plausible and reasonable points.

At this stage I would just like to add, what I believe, is a little clarification about the statements Sequeira and Saunders made about the killer not having any design on a particular organ; and this after Sequeira said he agreed with Dr. Brown's assessment. On the surface, this seems contradictory, but that's not necessarily so.

We have to remember what had just previously taken place that very week at the conclusion of the Chapman inquest. Baxter had just dropped a bombshell with his notion about the possible procurement of uteri for anatomical specimens and that some individual may have had designs in that regard for removing Annie Chapman's uterus. This became extremely controversial right before the 'double event' took place.

The line of questions and answers that were given were with that controversy in mind. It was the purpose of the extractions that Sequeira and others were referring to; that the killer had no 'design' on any particular organ meant that, in his opinion, the organs were not extracted for specimens. It was their way of debunking Baxter's theory. Certainly, the killer intended to take Eddowes' uterus, just as Chapman's was removed. With this more recent murder as proof, it was obvious by now that the uterus (and possibly the kidney as well) was of no use in the way Baxter had suggested in the Chapman murder. As noted, that the killer intended to take the organs was obvious because he did just that; the same organ on two occasions... just not by the specific 'design' suggested by Baxter in the previous murder.

They merely took the opportunity to debunk Baxter's theory without adding any more supposition of their own as to why they may have been taken. Remember that Brown said that the organ in question would serve no 'professional purpose', which Sequeira and Sanders both agreed. And while Brown did suggest some anatomical knowledge as to 'the placement of the organs', he gave examples of individuals- not possessing any medical skill, but maybe some anatomical knowledge- who might be capable of perpetrating such an act. We've discussed some other possibilities in this thread that are plausible as well.

There really was no conflict in the conclusions of the three medicos present at the Eddowes inquest. We only need to understand the backdrop of controversy recently caused by Baxter that led to some of the opinions expressed.

[Errata]

When I use a knife for any reason aside form spreading peanut butter, I am almost always cutting with the tip of the blade. Like using an exacto knife. Consequently, on the odd occasion that I do need to use a different part of the knife, I'm crap at it. Cutting meat uses 3/4s of the blade in a long stroke. Cutting bread uses the middle of the knife in short strokes. etc.

Someone with surgical experience would cut like a surgeon. Using the tip of the knife to cut a couple of layers until reaching the abdominal cavity. He would not stab and pull, stab and pull, until reaching the pubis. And it doesn't matter how big the knife is, or how unsuited it is for the task as hand. You simply choke up on the handle until you can make it work the way you want it to.

Jack did not incise. He ripped. The way sailors cut sail. Which probably explains why the throats were such a mess.

[Wickerman]

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.

Ben, the phrase you are looking for is "no great anatomical skill", they did not say "no anatomical skill". The average "joe" has no anatomical skill, we might even go so far as to say "no anatomical knowledge beyond the obvious, location of heart, brain, lungs," etc.
Knowing where your own heart is cannot be inferred as you being umbued with 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.

Street-skills with a knife would suffice for anyone with knowledge of where to find a particular organ.

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.

I think you read too much into that, no-one is suggesting the killer had a kidney on his shopping list. However, correctly removing a delicate organ like a kidney (ie; not damaging it) tells a story in itself to any medical professional conducting a post-mortem.

A butcher is necessarily informed on the subject of skeletal dismemberment, which the ripper demonstrably was not.

You might take the opportunity some day to ask a butcher which bones are thee most difficult and dangerous to separate, and why?
I'll tell you, more apprentice butchers have stabbed themselves in the groin learning how to separate neck bones, than any other serious wound.
Or at least that was the common understanding back in the 1970's.

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?

Impact.
On the one hand this killer lacerates her face to reflect the recent media suggestion that the killer is a lunatic. On the other hand he also carefully removes a kidney like a sane practitioner.
The time suggested to complete those mutilations was not "5 minutes", it was "at least 5 minutes".

Let us not forget though that any time limits are only restricted by the acceptance of Lawende's sighting. If he was mistaken then the time limit is removed. and there is no compelling reason to believe Lawende had correctly identified Eddowes clothing. On that slender detail rests his whole case.

Regards, Jon S.

[Ben]

Hi Jon,

It is quite clear that Baxter formed the impression, as I did, that the weight of evidence from the Eddowes inquest was to the effect that the killer was unskilled. Dr. Brown was irrefutably in the minority.

Dr. Sequeira's comments were as follows:

"I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill"

If he wanted to convey the impression that the killer was semi-skilled, he couldn't have expressed himself more poorly.

I've had this semantic argument about what "great" means before, but my observations from yonks ago still stand. If you describe an actor as having "no great talent" or a curry as having "no great flavour", you're expressing negativity. The actor's crap and the curry tastes of nothing is what you're saying, in essence. Saunders, Sequeira and Phillips were clearly unimpressed by the anatomical "knowledge" displayed by Eddowes' mutilator, and equally clearly, none of these three would have put the level of skill beyond that of the average Joe.

However, correctly removing a delicate organ like a kidney (ie; not damaging it) tells a story in itself to any medical professional conducting a post-mortem.

I don't know what you mean by not damaging it. In the absence of the kidney, how can we possibly know how much damage it sustained during its extraction? It did, as you say, tell "a story in itself to any medical professional conducting a post-mortem", and in the opinion of three out of four medical professionals, that story was one of an unskilled operator.

You might take the opportunity some day to ask a butcher which bones are thee most difficult and dangerous to separate, and why?

I've spoken to quite a few butchers, and they don't say that at all. They assure me that provided you use the correct tools for the trade (and it would take a very poor butcher indeed to get such a thing wrong), there should be no problem. There may be the possibility of self-injury in the process, but to attempt a decapitation and fail at the endeavour points irrefutably away from a butcher or slaughterer.

The time suggested to complete those mutilations was not "5 minutes", it was "at least 5 minutes".

That was only one suggestion. Another, which came from Dr. Sequeira - the first doctor on the scene - was that the killer would have taken about three minutes, which is perfectly compatible with Lawende's sighting; rightly considered by most to be the most important eyewitness sighting, and apparently the only one used in later years as a means of identifying potential suspects. There is a very compelling reason for accepting that he saw Eddowes and her killer. He believed the clothing was the same as that presented to him by the police, which carries considerably more weight than a judgment that the clothing was merely "similar". While the possibility exists that the couple in question were persons other than Eddowes and her killer, the probability most emphatically does not.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

Hi Hunter,

I understand your point, but would respectfully disagree. Sequeira was being quizzed specifically about the autopsy, and the conclusions he might draw from that. As such, it would have been germane to the inquiry to offer an opinion as to whether or not the killer was seeking a specific organ. The issue of what might be done with the targeted organ thereafter was quite simply not his area of expertise to venture an opinion on. That was a matter for the coroner and for the police, and had Sequeria offered an opinion as to what financial or specimen-related plans the killer might have had for the organ, it would have been interesting but completely irrelevant to the autopsy he was being specifically queried about. Hence, I think we can be fairly sure that notwithstanding Baxter's funny ideas from the Chapman inquest, Sequeira was saying that in his opinion, the killer did not appear to be in pursuit of any particular organ. This would certainly tally with his view that the mutilations took three minutes.

It isn't the case that the uterus extraction from the Chapman and Eddowes murders "prove" that the killer sought that organ in particular. More likely to my mind is that the killer stumbled on the uterus as a result of rummaging around, pulled it taught, realised that it still adhered to the body in two locations and simply cut those adherents, doing so again with less success at the Eddowes murder. He simply repeated what appeared to go well at his first "exploration".

When Sequeira expressed agreement with Brown, it was only with regard to the position of the body. He wasn't saying he agreed with his overall assessment.

All the best,
Ben

[Ben]

pulled it taught

Taut, I meant, of course!

[lynn cates]

dictum

Hello Jon. Completely agree that Kate's assailant both knew how to cut out (not tear out) a kidney--and did. Likewise the uterus. It did not, however, come out clean like Annie's. But that is not my main point.

I refer to Baxter's dictum at the Stride inquest that:

"There had been no skilful mutilation as in the cases of Nichols and Chapman, and no unskilful injuries as in the case in Mitre-square--possibly the work of an imitator."

So it's not the organ removal that interests me, it is the mutilations themselves.

Cheers.
LC

[lynn cates]

meaning

Hello Ben. Are we clear on what he meant by "meaningless"?

Cheers.
LC

[DVV]

Hi Lynn. Baxter had too much akwavit in Scandinavia. It takes time to recover.

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

It is quite clear that Baxter formed the impression, as I did, that the weight of evidence from the Eddowes inquest was to the effect that the killer was unskilled.

Hi Ben.
Unskilled does not mean without sufficient knowledge, because clearly he had the knowledge. What the authorities were being cautious about in their wording was not to imply to the media that the killer might have been a skilled surgeon. That would have been fodder for the press to use and bring disrepute of their profession.

Dr. Sequeira's comments were as follows:

"I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill"

If he wanted to convey the impression that the killer was semi-skilled, he couldn't have expressed himself more poorly.

I think you know that Sequeira was attempting to stear away from any suggestion that the killer murdered for the sole intent of harvesting "a particular" organ.
You must admit the comment has no value. How could Sequeira possibly mean that the killer did not intend to take the organ? - he took it!

Likewise then, how could Sequeira mean that even though he took it, he didn't intend to? - what does Sequeira mean, he took it by accident?
Ben, the quote has no meaning other than to further hope to alay fears that the killer was harvesting organs for profit.
I would call it a political statement to pacify the reader, nothing more.

I don't know what you mean by not damaging it. In the absence of the kidney, how can we possibly know how much damage it sustained during its extraction?

The implication is given by Dr Browns words:
Dr. Brown said - "The left kidney has been carefully taken away, and the artery cut through."

"...witness said the left kidney was carefully taken out,.."

I think that someone who knew the position of the kidney, and how to take it out, must have done it.

The significant detail is not only that it was carefully removed, but that the attachments, the Renal artery was "cut". This is almost unbelievable because anyone pulling out the kidney will quite unknowingly rip the artery in half. You wouldn't even notice it in the dark in an abdomen swimming in blood.
The fact the artery was cut means the killer hesitated for a moment to remove the kidney in the correct manner. On top of this is the implication that the kidney was also removed from within the fatty membrane. I say this because I find it difficult to establish whether it was removed with any degree of care unless the fatty membrane was left behind. An empty shell devoid of the kidney with no trace of kidney material left behind.

I've spoken to quite a few butchers, and they don't say that at all. They assure me that provided you use the correct tools for the trade

Somehow I think those are your words not theirs. There is only one tool a butcher would use, no other is strong enough, the boning knife.
A butcher's tools are a boning knife, a steak knife, and a steel. Unless things have changed in the last 30 years, thats all we had, and 19th century butchers were no different.
The correct way to separate neck bones in a hurry (but not for human consumption) would be to clever them apart.

Nevertheless, we have no certainty that this killer did try to separate the neck bones. Marks on the neck appeared "as if":

"..It also seemed as if an attempt had been made to separate the bones of the neck."

That said, I do agree, there is no certain indications that a butcher was the killer, any more than a post-mortem assistant, or perhaps a medical student.
None of these are unquestionably beyond consideration.

There is a very compelling reason for accepting that he saw Eddowes and her killer. He believed the clothing was the same as that presented to him by the police, which carries considerably more weight than a judgment that the clothing was merely "similar". While the possibility exists that the couple in question were persons other than Eddowes and her killer, the probability most emphatically does not.

Lawende is your best witness:
"...She had on a black jacket and bonnet..."

Didn't half the women in Whitechapel have black bonnets, black jackets and black skirts?

"....and he thought they were the same clothes which the deceased wore on the night in question."

"...and I recognise them as the sort of dress worn by that woman"

"...and believe them to be those the deceased was wearing."

"He did not see the woman’s face, but deceased’s clothes looked like those she was wearing."

"Thought, ..sort of, ..believed, ..looked like", seems to me Lawende is saying the clothes he saw were "similar" to the ones Eddowes wore.
You cannot make a silk purse from a sow's ear Ben. Lawende was not absolutely sure, therefore neither can we be.
It wouldn't do for us to place more emphasis on his words than he did himself now would it?

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

Hi Jon, Lawende is a good witness and JtR a bad anatomist, trust me (or not).

[Wickerman]

Ok Dave, got it!

[DVV]

One must admit that if the man possessed some anatomical/medical knowledge, he played his cards close to his chest in Miller's Court.

In Provençal, we'd say "Qué chaple !" meaning "what a massacre/mess".

[Wickerman]

On the one hand it can hardly be argued that the killer was of sound mind while carving up Mary Kelly.

On the other hand Bond made no observations in writing that the Uterus, Spleen, Kidneys, Liver & Heart had been removed by an experienced hand.

We might also ask, should we expect an experienced hand to remove portions of flesh in measured squares? That any random cuts to the face should by applied in measured parallel or horizontal lines?

What would a corpse look like which had been cut to pieces by someone with anatomical knowledge, but not a surgeon?

Does anyone know of an example to demonstrate the argument?

Our preconceived notions sometimes influence what we expect to see, to the point of seeing what does not exist, and not seeing what is clearly evident.

Regards, Jon S.

[DVV]

On the one hand it can hardly be argued that the killer was of sound mind while carving up Mary Kelly.

Indeed, Jon. By the way the Miller's Court murder looks more the work of a wood-carver than that of Dr Mabuse.

On the other hand Bond made no observations in writing that the Uterus, Spleen, Kidneys, Liver & Heart had been removed by an experienced hand.

"In each case the mutilation was inflicted by a person who had no scientific not anatomical knowledge. Imo he does not even possess the technical knowledge of a butcher." (Dr Bond)