Jack and his knives - Old aquaintances or lucky amateurs?

[Fernglas]

One of the oldest discussions about the Ripper is his medical skills or lack thereoff. I think solving this can help weeding out several pseudo suspects and is one of the few areas of evidence we have which is halfway decent in quality. The post mortem reports of the doctors might differ somewhat, but we have something to work with.

I consider the Kelly murder the "anomaly" of the canonical series. Doctor Bond was likely shocked by what he investigated, which influenced his opinion that the Ripper had no knowledge of what he did. We cannot forget that unlike the first 4 murders, Jack was indoors, out of sight and had all the time in the world to do what he wanted - and that he did!
I find the murders he committed in the open, under time pressure and less than ideal lighting to be more demonstrating of his skills. Especially the Chapman and Eddowes cases. The Ripper opened up his victims like a medic or surgeon of his time would do to get to the organs he wanted to take. I find this significant, because going in like a surgeon is something he did not have to do. The way surgeries are done is to make the operation with the least amount of damage to the patient.
JtR had already killed his victims when he started to take out the organs, he simply did not have to be careful of further or lethal damage! He could have gone for the coveted organs quicker and without any care how he got there. BUT when he was under pressure and minuscle lights (Mitre Square was near total darkness), he still took the steps a doctor or medic in a surgery ward would have done! Only afterwards he went for mutilation for mutilationīs sake.
This is learned behaviour coming through and knowledge shown which in 1888 was rather rare in the East End. The taking of the organs was too methodical and "by the book" to be done by a lucky amateur slashing about.

In my honest opinion these hints cancel out a lot of suspects. Those who simply did not have such knowledge. Stage free for discussion!

[erobitha]

What proof is there the bodies were opened like a surgeon would open them? What steps did he take that was exactly like a doctor?

If he was so talented at surgery why did he make such a hack of Chapman's bladder and uterus?

I don't see any evidence of this clinical precision you seem to advocate.

I see someone with an interest in human anatomy and a general idea of where things were in the body. His fascination could have been occult-inspired as every organ he took or went missing was different. This could be indicative of some kind of ceremonial desire.

I lean towards being sexually motivated by the organs. Sadly, it is a thing. I suspect he took them away to experience them against his skin for his own, ahem, purposes.

[Trevor Marriott]

What proof is there the bodies were opened like a surgeon would open them? What steps did he take that was exactly like a doctor?

If he was so talented at surgery why did he make such a hack of Chapman's bladder and uterus?

I don't see any evidence of this clinical precision you seem to advocate.

I see someone with an interest in human anatomy and a general idea of where things were in the body. His fascination could have been occult-inspired as every organ he took or went missing was different. This could be indicative of some kind of ceremonial desire.

I lean towards being sexually motivated by the organs. Sadly, it is a thing. I suspect he took them away to experience them against his skin for his own, ahem, purposes.

Two different extraction methods were used in the removal of the uterus from Chapman and Eddowes indicating two different people were responsible for the removal, and neither was the work of the killer.

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Bridewell]

Two different extraction methods were used in the removal of the uterus from Chapman and Eddowes indicating two different people were responsible for the removal, and neither was the work of the killer.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Why does two different extraction methods necessarily indicate two different people being responsible rather than one individual who has refined his technique?

[Fernglas]

What proof is there the bodies were opened like a surgeon would open them? What steps did he take that was exactly like a doctor?

If he was so talented at surgery why did he make such a hack of Chapman's bladder and uterus?

I don't see any evidence of this clinical precision you seem to advocate.

I see someone with an interest in human anatomy and a general idea of where things were in the body. His fascination could have been occult-inspired as every organ he took or went missing was different. This could be indicative of some kind of ceremonial desire.

I lean towards being sexually motivated by the organs. Sadly, it is a thing. I suspect he took them away to experience them against his skin for his own, ahem, purposes.

Hi! You underestimate the situational circumstances under which the Ripper "operated" in the first 4 canonical deeds. Out in the open, under time pressure (there could always be a witness coming) and miserable lights, e.g. the sites at Hanbury Street or Mitre Square were nearly full dark. In 1888 there were no strong handheld lights available, under the circumstances the Ripper was rather good as far as the surgeries are concerned! It is more remarkable that he had so few miscuts, underscoring his skills.
Further he circumvented the navel of the victims, something which is done in normal surgeries for several reasons, none which are appliable on a dead or soon dead victim!
When extracting the kidney, Jack followed the steps of an abdominal surgery of his time and put some of the internal organs "away" like a surgeon does, e.g. the sigmoid area into the rectum, something no amateur does! By the way, surgeons do this often to this day. And all this under minuscle light. An amateur would have left a victim looking like it had stopped a grenade with the stomach, not something a doctor can recognise and retrace.
Everyone can muddle through a kidney extraction with a sharp scalpell, time and good lighting, even if very messily and no talking about how the victim and murder site will look like. The Ripper on the other hand could do it quickly, under abomiable circumstances, followed "the book" and had very few miscuts along the way.
Jack as many things, a simple amateur with a knife he was not.

[kjab3112]

What proof is there the bodies were opened like a surgeon would open them? What steps did he take that was exactly like a doctor?

If he was so talented at surgery why did he make such a hack of Chapman's bladder and uterus?

I don't see any evidence of this clinical precision you seem to advocate.

I see someone with an interest in human anatomy and a general idea of where things were in the body. His fascination could have been occult-inspired as every organ he took or went missing was different. This could be indicative of some kind of ceremonial desire.

I lean towards being sexually motivated by the organs. Sadly, it is a thing. I suspect he took them away to experience them against his skin for his own, ahem, purposes.

I think, but may be wrong, that an anterior approach to the kidney was only described by Kocher in 1878. Given the timescale for dissemination of knowledge at that time, would Surgeon Jack have really known that approach in only a decade? The midline incision was and still is a standard approach to the uterus and in dissection. An avenue for future targeted research I suspect. Jack: doctor? butcher? mortuary worker?