Jack the Field Surgeon ?

[Errata]

I didn't think there was anyone left who believes the killer demonstrated surgical skill.
Practically everyone and his dog, not forgetting the medical professionals of the time, have shown this to have been an erroneous belief.

As for anatomical knowledge, that is another matter...

I was with you for a long time. But my dad is an OB/GYN surgeon, and he is creepy impressed with how Jack took the two uteruses. In fact he's the one who pointed out to me that it looked like a feral child opened the body, but a resident took out the uterus. Which was awkward because a: the imagery of a feral child like that is stomach turning and b: Dad gushing over the Ripper frankly makes me glad I don't sleep under his roof anymore. I now have empathy for my fiance.

Just remember that surgical training back then was not the same. The same system was in play, but a medical student's experience depended entirely on his instructor. Some surgeons allowed students to participate in surgery. Some surgeons turned the whole thing over to students and kicked back with a coffee watching. And some surgeons were determined that their students would not so much as touch a patient until they passed their boards. A student working a charity hospital was far more experienced a doctor than a student at a private university. So knowledge and skill commensurate with a medical student could equal that of any modern surgeon. Or could equal that of my cousin Jess, who still tries to pee on people's jellyfish stings.

But Maura Tierney, who played a doctor on TV saved her husband's life by correctly diagnosing a burst appendix and getting him to the ER. So there is some validity to the idea that simply seeing something several times is enough for some people to execute.

[Wickerman]

I was with you for a long time. But my dad is an OB/GYN surgeon, and he is creepy impressed with how Jack took the two uteruses....

The way I look at it is this.
We have medical professionals of the time who saw the wounds up close. From their first-hand analysis they were able to form an opinion as to the level of skill displayed.

These Doctors/Surgeons offered descriptions of the internal 'surgery' conducted by the killer for the Coroner's Inquest. The descriptions they gave are very basic in detail, as in most cases the Jury was comprised of layperson's.

It is from these rudimentary descriptions that modern readers, and presumably modern medical professionals, try to guess the level of surgical skill employed by the killer.

Do you see how the modern reader's understanding, regardless of experience, is limited by the selected choice of words used by the contemporary doctors?
Whereas the doctors who saw the wounds with their own eyes had no such impediment to their judgement.
If there is any disagreement between contemporary medical opinion, and modern medical opinion, with respect to the conclusion on 'level of skill', then I think we can agree on who was in the best position to judge.

The value that I see, and I'm including Dr. Ind (SR-GOS) along with Prosector, and any OB/GYN in this, is that they (ie, modern specialists) are best equipped to explain what the autopsy reports mean, but not to second guess the contemporary medical conclusions, they simply do not have enough detail to go that far.

Obviously, the doctors of the time saw considerably more than they chose to comment on.

[Errata]

Obviously, the doctors of the time saw considerably more than they chose to comment on.

I think that's true. But I wouldn't blame the doctors for not knowing what to make of a body that appears to have been opened by a drunk man and a can opener and then fairly sophisticated organ removal. I mean, I don't know what to make of that. It's entirely possible that when confronted with a woman who looks like she's been torn open by bare hands, the conclusion if going to be that the man had no surgical skill. That the organs were apparently carefully removed could then be chalked up as sheer luck. The assumption being that if the guy had skill with a blade he wouldn't have made such a hash of opening the body. Which is a fair assumption. I certainly made that assumption until my dad talked me out of it.

[Trevor Marriott]

I think that's true. But I wouldn't blame the doctors for not knowing what to make of a body that appears to have been opened by a drunk man and a can opener and then fairly sophisticated organ removal. I mean, I don't know what to make of that. It's entirely possible that when confronted with a woman who looks like she's been torn open by bare hands, the conclusion if going to be that the man had no surgical skill. That the organs were apparently carefully removed could then be chalked up as sheer luck. The assumption being that if the guy had skill with a blade he wouldn't have made such a hash of opening the body. Which is a fair assumption. I certainly made that assumption until my dad talked me out of it.

Hi
You make some excellent points and you were right and your dad wrong. But to add is what some do not seem to appreciate is that whether it be 1888 or 2013 to be able to remove these organs with even a modicum of anatomical knowledge they first have to be located and then taken hold of to be able to remove them.

With regards to the kidney you cannot reach inside the abdomen and take hold of it because it sits flush in renal fat the same applies to the uterus and Fallopian tubes attached.

I really wonder when some of the posters on here who still believe the killer removed these organs at the crime scene are going to wake up to reality. The cut and slash theory is a non starter.

[Hunter]

With regards to the kidney you cannot reach inside the abdomen and take hold of it because it sits flush in renal fat the same applies to the uterus and Fallopian tubes attached.

Hunters do it all the time, Trevor, and the animal is rolled over on its back during field dressing. The renal fat offers no resistance. Once you get your hand around the kidney - which is firm like a rubber ball - you just cut the attached vessels and lift it out. I realize that people who have never done this before simply have no concept of it. And if you have a baseless theory to promulgate, you don't want to have any concept of it.

City folks!

[Steve S]

I was totally about to argue with you, but then I remembered there were three Boer communities. One in the Transvaal, One former Dutch, one under Rhodes. Rhodes having turned into an exceptional monster of a man with his treatment of natives, I had an accident in my head. Because politics isn't complicated enough without three states with the same name.
Mea Culpa

That's a bit confusing..There were the Transvaal and the Orange Free state as Boer Republics...No-where was really "Under Rhodes" until the founding of Rhodesia in the 1890's...Which was British,not Boer settled...Of course there were still Boers as communities in Natal and Cape Colony.

[Errata]

That's a bit confusing..There were the Transvaal and the Orange Free state as Boer Republics...No-where was really "Under Rhodes" until the founding of Rhodesia in the 1890's...Which was British,not Boer settled...Of course there were still Boers as communities in Natal and Cape Colony.

Rhodes has a seat in the Cape Colony Assembly, and represented a Boer community that was intensely devoted to him. Wikipedia says it was called Barkly West, and since I don't know any different I'll just assume that's true. Given Rhodes may have accidentally started the second Boer War, I have always associated him with that (amongst many other numbskull things). So for some reason in my head I put his Boer community from 1880 (who benefited from his anti black policies) with the second Boer War. An accident in my head.

But seriously neither here nor there.

[moonbegger]

As for anatomical knowledge, that is another matter...

I have a fair to good Knowledge , on how to fly a small airplane ( switches , panels , controls , ect ) but having never actually flown one , I pity the poor fool who straps in beside me on my maiden flight especially if it is dark out , and I'm in a hurry ..

moonbegger

[Errata]

I dunno, there are people out there who are excellent mimics. I'm a good one and I can't tell you how many times it has substituted for actual skill. It's not a universal ability, for example I can't do it with drawing and the like, but movement, voice, language, even simple mechanics I can replicate precisely after having been exposed to it two or three times. I can't really say whether or not I could apply that to surgery, because I've been exposed to so much medical stuff that I can't pull back and think about it objectively. But I could swim butterfly after having seen one swim meet, so maybe that's the same thing? but no matter how many times someone shows me how to whistle with my fingers, can't do it.

And I'm not at all exceptional at mimicry. Like, my ability is a party trick at best. I had a friend in school who could literally copy anything after seeing it once. She ended up having to go to a special school because testing her on anything was pointless. She could do it, but she rarely had any idea how she was doing it. Or even why. But she could use chopsticks perfectly after watching my dad for all of 10 seconds. And in the performing arts, you run across those kinds of people all the time. People who learn to juggle just by watching, or untrained singers just copying what they hear. And Ashley was a brilliant musician.

And serial killers are often brilliant mimics, as are abused children. So if it's possible for a 10 year old girl to play a Mozart concerto after hearing it once, it's possible some guy out there could perform surgery after seeing it once. I mean, it's a two part skill. It's the acquisition of detailed knowledge very quickly, and the ability to replicate. If Jack had the first skill but not so much the second, it might explain some stuff.