A different way of viewing the 'medical knowledge' question?

[Paul Sutton]

I'm afraid 'old hands' will need to be patient, if this is airing something long-discussed. Having just joined, I've a backlog of points I'd be grateful to hear views on.

Both my parents were doctors and my father was a Professor of Pathology (actually of 'Morbid Anatomy', what a wonderfully Ripper-like archaism!). He even did the post-mortem on poor Sylvia Plath, as a young registrar working at University College Hospital. I have very clear memories of visiting labs at UCH and the extraordinarily grim surgical museum there - with the old blood-stained pre-anaesthetic operating table, replete with restraining metal hoops. And a sword-swallower's skeleton, of this chap who punctured his stomach and died from it. (I think this was some ghoulish medical humour).

As a result, I'm inordinately squeamish and can't stand any images of mutilated bodies. It's long interested me how JtR could have developed the incredible facility to immerse himself in someone else's viscera - not with respect to whether he was medically qualified, but just in terms of 'who could ever do that?' I frequently discussed this with my father, from that perspective.

I realise this strays into the profiling question, but I believe such extreme mutilation is very rare in serial killers. In comparison, Sutcliffe was (whilst a monster) far less destructive.

I also realise that 'Serial Killers are just odd, they do that sort of thing' can easily be said. But I think it's inconceivable a man like Lechmere could have doe this - I think vague connections like family cat-meat sellers or delivering carcasses are nothing like enough.

That's why 'George Chapman' seems a good fit for me. I mean, who could slowly poison one's wives, seemingly for the pleasure of watching them die? Many medically-linked types (not my Dad I hasten to add) have a very odd side to them.

It's also why Francis Thompson seems plausible, if one's read his most extreme verse, which is mired in gore.

[GBinOz]

Hi Paul,

One of the things that I have noted about Thompson is that he was a student of Virchow, who was an advocate of a rarely taught method of removing the heart from the pericardium via the abdominal cavity. This is what happened to Mary Kelly, and is distinctly different from a slash and grab for the heart, as the heart was surgically removed with the pericardium left in place.

Cheers, George

[Paul Sutton]

Hi Paul,

One of the things that I have noted about Thompson is that he was a student of Virchow, who was an advocate of a rarely taught method of removing the heart from the pericardium via the abdominal cavity. This is what happened to Mary Kelly, and is distinctly different from a slash and grab for the heart, as the heart was surgically removed with the pericardium left in place.

Cheers, George

Hi again George,

Yes, I found that of great interest, in the book. Many people seem to think he wasn't really a medical student, since he deliberately flunked his exams. But his father had to provide extra-funding, for the unusual number of cadavers he got through. And it's clear the college he attended was based on continual practical assessment; he'd have been chucked out if he wasn't keeping up. The written exams were sat in London, and he just skipped them. In other words, in a hands on sense, he was used to being immersed in someone's guts!

[erobitha]

I have touched on this before. There is a sub-set of sexual sado masochists that enjoy the sensory enjoyment of internal organs up against their skin. Mutilation does occur in many serial killer crimes, often for sexual gratification purposes. Jeffrey Dahmer and Ed Kemper (in his case his own mother), were known to do things with decapitated heads, but that is a bit different. It's still horrific, but not quite the same.

This particular gratification comes from the act of mutilation of internal organs and the sexual pleasure that derives. You could make a case for the murder of Sweet Fanny Adams as being in this category, but JtR is history's first major example of this. The act of murder was admin. He was quite efficient. He wanted them dead as quickly and as quietly as possible so he could do the thing that drove him to do what he did. The internal female anatomy, especially the female reproductive area, fascinated and aroused him. MJK is him truly exploring all of his deepest desires.

I don't think there is an official diagnostic term for this, but the closest I have seen to anything best categorising it is 'Necromutilomania'.

Also, I would add JtR's victims were street-smart, albeit most were alcoholics. They would be wary of anyone displaying signs of psychosis, which is why I believe the murderer was a psychopath who could put the women at ease as being no threat. This is why I rule out the likes of Kosminski, who was most likely schizophrenic.

[FrankO]

As a result, I'm inordinately squeamish and can't stand any images of mutilated bodies. It's long interested me how JtR could have developed the incredible facility to immerse himself in someone else's viscera - not with respect to whether he was medically qualified, but just in terms of 'who could ever do that?' I frequently discussed this with my father, from that perspective.

I realise this strays into the profiling question, but I believe such extreme mutilation is very rare in serial killers. In comparison, Sutcliffe was (whilst a monster) far less destructive.

I also realise that 'Serial Killers are just odd, they do that sort of thing' can easily be said. But I think it's inconceivable a man like Lechmere could have doe this - I think vague connections like family cat-meat sellers or delivering carcasses are nothing like enough.

Hi Paul,

Although I do think that certain jobs would involve getting a better stomach for immersing yourself in someone else’s viscera, I don’t think it would actually be necessary, as suggested by some examples of mutilating serial killers, like Robert Clive Napper and Richard Trenton Chase. Then again, Jack Owen Spillman, who killed and mutilated a girl and a mother and her daughter, had worked as a butcher. My idea would be that he worked as a butcher because he had this perverted inclination, but it sure may have taken it to develop the stomach for the type of murders he committed.

Cheers,
Frank

[Paul Sutton]

I have touched on this before. There is a sub-set of sexual sado masochists that enjoy the sensory enjoyment of internal organs up against their skin. Mutilation does occur in many serial killer crimes, often for sexual gratification purposes. Jeffrey Dahmer and Ed Kemper (in his case his own mother), were known to do things with decapitated heads, but that is a bit different. It's still horrific, but not quite the same.

This particular gratification comes from the act of mutilation of internal organs and the sexual pleasure that derives. You could make a case for the murder of Sweet Fanny Adams as being in this category, but JtR is history's first major example of this. The act of murder was admin. He was quite efficient. He wanted them dead as quickly and as quietly as possible so he could do the thing that drove him to do what he did. The internal female anatomy, especially the female reproductive area, fascinated and aroused him. MJK is him truly exploring all of his deepest desires.

I don't think there is an official diagnostic term for this, but the closest I have seen to anything best categorising it is 'Necromutilomania'.

Also, I would add JtR's victims were street-smart, albeit most were alcoholics. They would be wary of anyone displaying signs of psychosis, which is why I believe the murderer was a psychopath who could put the women at ease as being no threat. This is why I rule out the likes of Kosminski, who was most likely schizophrenic.

Thanks, this is fascinating to read. I think not enough is made of the mental/conceptual 'ability' and desire to do this. The extreme sort of mutilation JtR did is what I mean by rare - not just the mutilation, but the almost anatomical/pathological (in its true sense) drive.

It must be a way of narrowing? I think it must mean the killer had worked in an environment with cadavers - or access to one! And, as you say, his honing in on the reproductive area. It's why Tumblety and Thompson are interesting.

What I'm interested in here is discussion, so many thanks for coming back. I'm new here but one thing I observe is that this is rarer than people immediately seeing a name and then saying 'It can't be them, only XYZ is viable.' Seems pointless to me!

[Paul Sutton]

Hi Paul,

Although I do think that certain jobs would involve getting a better stomach for immersing yourself in someone else’s viscera, I don’t think it would actually be necessary, as suggested by some examples of mutilating serial killers, like Robert Clive Napper and Richard Trenton Chase. Then again, Jack Owen Spillman, who killed and mutilated a girl and a mother and her daughter, had worked as a butcher. My idea would be that he worked as a butcher because he had this perverted inclination, but it sure may have taken it to develop the stomach for the type of murders he committed.

Cheers,
Frank

Hi Frank,

I agree. But there's mutilation and mutilation! (Not that I speak from experience)!

JtR seems to be not 'just' mutilation but more like a PM. As said, my father was a pathologist, frequently for the Home Office. He thought JtR had an almost Pathologist like approach, in some cases, after reading the reports. Just his view, but he'd done thousands of post-mortems, including many criminal cases.

[Lewis C]

Thanks, this is fascinating to read. I think not enough is made of the mental/conceptual 'ability' and desire to do this. The extreme sort of mutilation JtR did is what I mean by rare - not just the mutilation, but the almost anatomical/pathological (in its true sense) drive.

It must be a way of narrowing? I think it must mean the killer had worked in an environment with cadavers - or access to one! And, as you say, his honing in on the reproductive area. It's why Tumblety and Thompson are interesting.

What I'm interested in here is discussion, so many thanks for coming back. I'm new here but one thing I observe is that this is rarer than people immediately seeing a name and then saying 'It can't be them, only XYZ is viable.' Seems pointless to me!

Hi Paul,

I agree with most of what you're saying in this thread, and partly for that very reason, I don't think Tumblety is a likely suspect. I think JtR was interested in women's bodies; Tumblety was interested in men's bodies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess that you're basing your mention of Tumblety on the story of him having a collection of uteri. My understanding is that the only source for that is a single person, and that person is known for frequently lying. For me, Tumblety's suspect status almost depends on JtR's motive being strictly hatred of women or prostitutes, and he wouldn't have really been aroused by mutilating, but did it just to further degrade the women.

[Paul Sutton]

Hi Paul,

I agree with most of what you're saying in this thread, and partly for that very reason, I don't think Tumblety is a likely suspect. I think JtR was interested in women's bodies; Tumblety was interested in men's bodies. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would guess that you're basing your mention of Tumblety on the story of him having a collection of uteri. My understanding is that the only source for that is a single person, and that person is known for frequently lying. For me, Tumblety's suspect status almost depends on JtR's motive being strictly hatred of women or prostitutes, and he wouldn't have really been aroused by mutilating, but did it just to further degrade the women.

Hi Lewis (or should I call your Mr Dodgson?).

Yes, I based it on his collection of uteri. I didn't realise that was in question - thanks!

I think Tumbleweed was abnormally tall and freakish in appearance - so he's going to stick out. None of the witnesses report anyone remotely like him.

I don't know if it's established that he was gay - if he were, then he's very unlikely to have been JtR! I think he had cautions for stuff in gents' loos - cottaging, as the Victorians (and later) called it?

Cheers

Paul

[Lewis C]

Lewis is fine.

I agree that Tumblety doesn't seem to match any of the witness descriptions. There's no one witness description that I have a huge amount of faith in, but I think it's unlikely that every one of them is wrong, and Tumblety doesn't seem to fit any of them.

It might not be 100% established that he was gay, but when he was in jail in England awaiting charges just before he fled to America, the charges were for homosexual behavior.

I doublechecked on the story about his supposed collection of uteri. What I said before I thought was well-established, but I see now that on page 266 of the 2013 edition of Donald Rumbelow's book, he stated as if it were a fact that Tumblety displayed his collection of uteri at a dinner party. I consider Rumbelow to be among the best of secondary sources, but his book doesn't have citations. Still, maybe I previously rejected the story in too categorical a manner.

[Paul Sutton]

Hi Lewis,

His height - especially then - is the problem, a couple of inches off six foot I recall. Not huge by our standards, but towering over the victims.

[Lewis C]

Hi Lewis,

His height - especially then - is the problem, a couple of inches off six foot I recall. Not huge by our standards, but towering over the victims.

I agree, and also, he was 55. Most of the descriptions are of a man under 40. The only exception that comes to mind is the man that Long saw, but he wasn't as tall as Tumblety, and probably darker.

[Abby Normal]

Hi Paul,

One of the things that I have noted about Thompson is that he was a student of Virchow, who was an advocate of a rarely taught method of removing the heart from the pericardium via the abdominal cavity. This is what happened to Mary Kelly, and is distinctly different from a slash and grab for the heart, as the heart was surgically removed with the pericardium left in place.

Cheers, George

great point george
his medical knowledge, writings about mutilating prostitutes/women, and proximity make him a valid suspect IMHO.

and i agree about Dr T. dosnt fit any witness descriptions and homosexuality pretty much rules him out for me. hes still a possibility of course, just a long shot in my view.

[FrankO]

Hi Frank,

I agree. But there's mutilation and mutilation! (Not that I speak from experience)!

JtR seems to be not 'just' mutilation but more like a PM. As said, my father was a pathologist, frequently for the Home Office. He thought JtR had an almost Pathologist like approach, in some cases, after reading the reports. Just his view, but he'd done thousands of post-mortems, including many criminal cases.

Aha! So, you're not just suggesting that Jack the Ripper quite possibly had a type of job that would lower the threshold for immersing himself in someone else’s viscera, but you're specifying his job as someone who had, at least, watched someone performing post-mortems - is that correct?

I don't know if I would go that far, but I do think it likely that he, in one form or another, informed himself of such activity. I think, for instance, that he would have seen the wax models of women with their abdomen opened up, models that were on display in "museums" like the one below (taken from the Daily Telegraph of 29 November).

"Another establishment, bearing some distant relation to one of the plastic arts, is situate at a street corner nearly opposite the democratic picture-shop, within a vigorous stone's-throw of the London Hospital. It is no exaggeration to say that the most remarkable waxworks of this or any other age are now on view in a western section of the Whitechapel-road. This amazing exhibition occupies the ground floor and cellarage of a frowsy two-storeyed house, the upper floor of which appears to be unoccupied. An no wonder, for who would willingly live under the same roof with the ghastly dolls that tenant the lower part of this sordid messuage? A penny is the fee for admission to the display, the attractions of which are incessantly proclaimed urbi et orbi by the stentorian voices of two curiously ill-favoured male attendants, while a slatternly, unkempt girl, as grimy as the most approved Old Master, sits at the receipt of custom hard by the entrance. When we visited them, the showrooms were thronged with blowzy, bonnetless women and unshaven, unwashed men, affording to more than one of the senses conclusive evidence that they had recently been somewhat assiduously engaged in "sampling" the wares of a neighbouring gin shop. Squeezed in here and there among these miscellaneous adults, and eagerly striving to catch a glimpse of the hideous effigies lining either wall of the long, low room, dimly lighted by slender and tremulous jets of gas, were a few pallid, precocious children, whose language was no less "painful and frequent and free" than that of their elders. The show itself, however, despite its many repulsive characteristics, could not possibly lower their moral tone; and yet it is unquestionably a "penny dreadful" of the most blood-curdling description, mainly consisting of long rows of vilely executed waxen figures and plaster busts, propped up, some upright, some askew, against either wall of the showroom, rigged out in the refuse of a Petticoat-lane old clothes shop, and professing (according to the halfpenny catalogue) to be striking likenesses of all the most notorious homicides of modern times. From Palmer to Pranzini the collection claims to be complete, and its serried ranks, whatever their artistic shortcomings may be - and in this respect we believe them to be unrivalled - unquestionably teem with the strangest of surprises, a few of which are ineffably comical. For instance, there is a deeply-pitted, broken-nosed, plaster-of-paris head, surmounted by a faded green hat and issuing from a threadbare double-breasted jacket. It looks like a slovenly cast of some mutilated classical bust dressed up in modern "slops" by way of a mild joke, the contrast between its lifeless whiteness and shabby-genteel "get-up" being wildly ludicrous. In the catalogue, however, this outrageous anachronism is set down as the correct effigy of Eliza Webster, who, as an artless critic in our immediate vicinity suggested, while contemplating her astounding lineaments, "must a' been a rum 'un to look at" when alive, if she ever bore the least resemblance to her "portrait-model." The chief attraction of the show, as might have been expected, considering its locality, is a blood-boltered display of revolting figures, purporting to represent the victims of the Whitechapel murders, laid out on the floor, side by side, at the farther end of a darksome cellar, connected with the ground-floor room by a rickety corkscrew staircase. These horrible objects are like nothing that ever lived or died. They can only be compared to the visionary offspring of an uncommonly severe nightmare - unearthly combinations of hideous waxen masks and shapeless bundles of rags. One of them is tightly swathed in a cerement of bright blue glazed calico, scored and blotched with dabs of red ochre, indicative of the unknown assassin's butcherly handiwork. The others are somewhat less grotesquely arrayed in dark wrappers profusely stained with mimic gore. At the other end of the cellar, close to a flaring gaslight, are cooped up two melancholy freaks of Nature - a grey hen and a common or garden duck, each afflicted with an extra pair of legs. These, the only living things in the whole appalling collection of horrors, manifest a violent and resentful reluctance to display their deformities, which is in odd contrast to the glassy indifference to public curiosity characterising their wax and plaster neighbours. They evidently yearn for privacy; when dragged from retirement by any of their four legs, in order to be minutely inspected, they struggle strenuously, and give utterance to indignant protests. Such is one of the cheap entertainments provided by contemporary enterprise for the inhabitants of Whitechapel. It is open from an early hour of the forenoon until late at night, and is visited by many hundreds of men, women, and children of the poorer classes daily. To what extent it may influence the East-enders deleteriously, by fostering a morbid interest in crime and criminals, can of course only be a matter of conjecture; but it seems a pity that such a debasing exhibition should constitute one of the principal amusements available to the population of a poverty-stricken neighbourhood."

I think poster Herlock Sholmes posted a picture once of one of those models with their abdomen cut open, very similar to how Mary Jane Kelly was found.

All the best,
Frank

[Paul Sutton]

Thanks Frank,

I love reading those Victorian extracts, just the tone of the writing is a joy - always some dark-humour in it, and such a zest for - well - life.

I'm suggesting some extensive conditioning and deadening, to the sheer horror of evisceration. I used to be fascinated that my dear old Dad could do this - amazed in fact. He explained it as no different from a car mechanic being able to strip a car down - and he was the kindest and most gentle of men. But he'd done thousands.

There has to be a huge barrier, to first doing this. Not enough just to have seen the odd exhibit or cat-meat stall/chopping up.