Originally posted by JeffHamm
View Post
Also, it is critical that one keeps separate the difference between "anatomical knowledge" and "anatomical skill". When the medical professionals mention "knowledge", they are saying to some extent or another that the killer knew where things were in the body cavity - this usually is based upon removing the kidneys as they are behind a membrane. Skill refers to having had experience with removing things from the body. I, for example, know where the kidneys are located (more or less), but I've never removed them. So I may have some anatomical knowledge, but I do not have anatomical skill. Dr. Brown, for example, thought Eddowes' killer had both the knowledge of where the kidneys were located, and of how to remove them.
[Coroner] Would you consider that the person who inflicted the wounds possessed anatomical skill? - He must have had a good deal of knowledge as to the position of the abdominal organs, and the way to remove them.
[Coroner] Would the parts removed be of any use for professional purposes? - None whatever.
[Coroner] Would the removal of the kidney, for example, require special knowledge? - It would require a good deal of knowledge as to its position, because it is apt to be overlooked, being covered by a membrane.
[Coroner] Would such a knowledge be likely to be possessed by some one accustomed to cutting up animals? - Yes.
Note, the last question by the coroner (would someone who cuts up animals know where the kidneys were located) doesn't mention skill. However, it sort of goes without saying that if someone is accustomed to cutting up animals to the point they have gained the knowledge of where the kidneys are located, then they will have acquired skills to do so as well.
Dr. Sequeira did not directly comment upon anatomical knowledge in his testimony, but was not of the opinion that the killer had any real skill:
By Mr. Crawford: I am well acquainted with the locality and the position of the lamps in the square. Where the murder was committed was probably the darkest part of the square, but there was sufficient light to enable the miscreant to perpetrate the deed. I think that the murderer had no design on any particular organ of the body. He was not possessed of any great anatomical skill.
I've underlined the "no design" section, as this indicates that Dr. Sequeira did not think the killer necessarily even had anatomical knowledge (because, if the killer wasn't specifically targeting the uterus and kidneys, then they were taken simply because he found them, not because he knew where to look!).
So I think your pointing out that there was disagreement at the time is spot on (obviously, Dr. Phillip's suggestion that Chapman's killer had experience in the dissection room means the upper range of knowledge, and presumably skill, is even higher than Dr. Brown's opinion). And as you point out, Dr. Bond's review of the case files at the time lead him to the "no knowledge/experience" end of things.
Which brings us to whether or not this item should be on Herlock's checklist at all? The idea is to tick off bits that correspond to JtR, but which end of the scale corresponds?
If, for example, one views the medical opinion of "no knowledge/skill" as the one to fit to, then the more knowledge and skill a suspect should have, the less they correspond to that set of views. At the moment, the checklist presumes that suspects with that knowledge are a better fit, but there is the possibility that less is more on this particular item.
However, the exact opposite argument could also be made, and that one could argue the more knowledge/skill a suspect can be shown to have, the greater the correspondence with JtR, which in a way is how Herlock originally scored this (2 for medical level knowledge/skill 1 for animal level, and 0 for none).
In my view, the current 1 or 0 coding strikes the right balance. The range of opinions is so wide that I think there is no reason to weight surgical experience as more indicative of JtR than experience with cutting up animals. Also, given that it is very common for those who end up engaging in mutilation murders to have started out by cutting up animals, I think if it can be shown that a suspect has had that experience then that at least does make sense. In fact, if we were to have a "level 2" match, I think it would have to be something extraordinary, such as finding out that a suspect, as a child, had engaged in cutting up animals in a deviant way (killing neighborhood cats or dogs, type thing). That would be a red flag of interest, raising them above someone who, through the course of their profession, has gained such knowledge and skill. All butchers, slaughterman, and doctors will have gained the knowledge of where organs tend to be, how to find them, and will have obtained some degree of experience (doctors will all have done some sort of dissections during their medical training, even if they don't go on to practice surgery, for example).
- Jeff
The way I look at it, The Ripper may or may not have needed some degree of anatomical skill/knowledge. Therefore, all else being equal, if a suspect had that, he would be a stronger suspect than one that didn't have that, because if that was necessary, that would mean that someone who didn't have it couldn't have been the Ripper. However, if someone did have that knowledge/skill, he could have been the Ripper whether he needed to have that skill or not.
Leave a comment: