The profession of Jack the Ripper.

[Albert]

Thanks for the clip, John G, that is dim!! The problem remains, as you say.
Cheers
Albert

[John G]

Thanks, John G, I didn't know the bulls-eye lanterns were quite dim, however even a small amount of light may have been enough to see what he was doing. From what I understand Mitre Square would have been the darkest place for Jack to have 'worked'.
Regards
Albert

Hi Albert,

I believe Particia Cornwell did some research and the results were quite poor. I've also found a You Tube clip posted by Monty!
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_mOEPlbbAvo

However, to my mind, even if the light quality was equivalent to, say, that of a modern torch you would still have less light available than from a modern operating theatre or on a bright summer's day. So the essential problem remains: how could a perpetrator remove organs, demonstrating an exceptional level of skill, in far from ideal lighting conditions, whilst using a Victorian knife and applying Victorian surgical techniques?

[Albert]

Thanks, John G, I didn't know the bulls-eye lanterns were quite dim, however even a small amount of light may have been enough to see what he was doing. From what I understand Mitre Square would have been the darkest place for Jack to have 'worked'.
Regards
Albert

[John G]

Hi,
I'm sorry if this has been raised before but do we know for certain that Jack worked in complete darkness - could he have had a bulls-eye lantern maybe?

Hi Albert,

I suppose that's a possibility, however, from the perpetrator's perspective it would clearly increase the risk of discovery. Moreover, my understanding is that the bull's-eye lanterns were not particularly bright, and certainly not as illuminating as a modern operating theatre!

I tend to get the impression that some of the post mortems were less than thorough, at least by modern standards, which has important implications for the different killers argument (which is largely predicted on the assumption that different murder scenes implied different levels of skill exercised by the perpetrator, therefore different killers).

Of course, Dr Llewellyn initially failed to realise that Nichols had been eviscerated and in respect of Chapman, Dr Phillips wasn't even expecting to give a detailed report at the inquest:

Coroner:"The object of the inquiry is not only to ascertain the cause of death, but the means by which it occurred. Any mutilation, which took place afterwards, may suggest the character of the man who did it."

Dr Phillips: "You don't wish for details. I think if it were possible to escape the details it would be advisable."

And I wonder if Dr Bond instinctively realised this. Otherwise, how could he have concluded that the killer didn't even even posses the skill of a butcher, or common horse slaughterer, when Dr Phillips' evidence seems to imply that Chapman's killer was the most gifted surgeon in recorded medical history?

[Albert]

Hi,
I'm sorry if this has been raised before but do we know for certain that Jack worked in complete darkness - could he have had a bulls-eye lantern maybe?

[John G]

Would anatomical knowledge without prior experience performing a surgery be sufficient to find and remove the organs in the way they were removed? (this is a genuine question, I still haven't made up my mind about this).

I remember the first time I saw a friend of mine rolling a joint, I said to him... "now I know how to roll a joint", to which he replied "you know how it's done, but you still don't know how to do it", the point being you're not necessarily ready to perform a complex task just by watching someone do it - it's not a very elegant example, but still a valid one, I think!

I'm going to quote an article on casebook:

In the opinion of most of the surgeons who examined the bodies, most believed that the killer had to have some degree of anatomical knowledge to do what he did. In one case he removed a kidney from the front rather than from the side, and did not damage any of the surrounding organs while doing so. In another case he removed the sexual organs with one clean stroke of the knife. Given the time circumstances of the crimes (outside, often in near total darkness, keeping one eye out for the approach of others, and under extremely tight time constraints), the Ripper almost certainly would have had some experience in using his knife.

http://www.casebook.org/intro.html

All the best!

According to an expert consulted by Trevor Marriott, " To remove the appendages, the uterus, the fallopian tubes and ovaries in one frenzied attack and one slice of the blade would be almost impossible. It is a very difficult and quite skilled undertaking to remove these organs carefully by today's methods, especially as the comment is that they were cleanly cut and the cut missed the rectum." Marriott, 2013)

And yet, Dr Phillips would have us believe that Chapman's killer was able to achieve such a remarkable feat, in poor lighting conditions, whilst under severe time pressure, whilst using a Victorian knife and Victorian surgical techniques!

Of course, the different killers argument relies largely on the proposition that Eddowes was eviscerated by a killer using less skill. And yet, apparently her murderer removed the kidney, without damaging surrounding tissues, in the dark, whilst using a Victorian knife!

According to Dr Calder, a consultant pathologist, "...to carry out this task in the dark would be almost impossible without producing damage to other organs." (Marriott, 2013).

It seems to me, therefore, that either the victims' organs were not removed at the scene of crime, a proposition for which there's no evidence, or the conclusions of the Victorian Medical "experts", regarding level of skill exhibited by the killer, cannot be remotely relied upon.

[ChrisGeorge]

Sorry, aaaaargh, the population of metropolitan London in 1888 was around five million not as I typed, eight million, which is the metropolitan London population total in our own time. Again, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...don#Population. Clearly, my fingers type faster than my mind!

Best regards

Chris

[ChrisGeorge]

Hi Rosella

Thx for your post.

Yes - I was also thinking about the hunting line.

Memoirs I've read of the time (including McNaghten and Smith) both talk about their passion for hunting.... and of course McNaghten talks about hunting jackels.

I also think there is something in this conflict between the two police forces. I can see how someone from City of London Police (or Railway Police) would have enjoyed seeing Metropolitan Police be embarrassed and ridiculed in public.

Also interesting in the Catherine Eddowes inquest how the Coroner or Jury foreman was critical of Metropolitan police practices.

I understand COL police were seen as more professional

Craig

Hi Craig

In regard to your statement, "I can see how someone from City of London Police (or Railway Police) would have enjoyed seeing Metropolitan Police be embarrassed and ridiculed in public." --

Police experts Neil Bell or Donald Rumbelow could probably better answer that contention more fully than I could. I should think though that the City of London Police and the Railway Police of 1888 would have felt very territorial and inferior to the Metropolitan Police, even if they would have avowed the very opposite, upholding the traditions of their respective police forces. In truth, however, and taking a hard look at the situation, the Met was truly massive compared to the City Police, whose jurisdiction was, as you no doubt know, just that small area enclosed by the original walls of the City of London, and the Railway Police were just concerned with the rail lines that ran into London. By contrast, the Met had the responsibility for the whole of the extraordinary sprawl of metropolitan London -- with a population in 1888 of some eight million to guard (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...don#Population), their area of jurisdiction was truly a monster compared the relatively tiny area that the City and Railway Police administered. So, I should think that, yes, there was bad feeling between the different police forces and even perhaps, slyly, some "secret pleasure" enjoyed by the City Police, especially, that their giant counterpart, the Met, ultimately proved unable to catch the Ripper.

Best regards

Chris

[DJA]

a surgeon of some experience

.....who happens to have chalk in his pocket at the start of the teaching term.

Dr Phillips has already told us what he uses.

Crikey!

[Rosella]

That goes back to the old arguments doesn't it that we will probably never know the answer to, vis. was this killer a surgeon of some experience, a hunter used to dressing animals like deer (which points to a country background) or a skilful slaughterman or butcher with or without medical dictionaries and text books and model Venuses?

[el_pombo]

If JTR was a police official, how could he have gained medical / anatomy knowledge ?

Is there any other Police Official with medical background, apart from Robert Sagar (who started to study medicine ) ?

Would medical / anatomy be part of training for Police officials ?

I know some of the senior folk were ex-army. Not sure if these roles would have exposed them to anatomy ?

Rgds

Craig

Would anatomical knowledge without prior experience performing a surgery be sufficient to find and remove the organs in the way they were removed? (this is a genuine question, I still haven't made up my mind about this).

I remember the first time I saw a friend of mine rolling a joint, I said to him... "now I know how to roll a joint", to which he replied "you know how it's done, but you still don't know how to do it", the point being you're not necessarily ready to perform a complex task just by watching someone do it - it's not a very elegant example, but still a valid one, I think!

I'm going to quote an article on casebook:

In the opinion of most of the surgeons who examined the bodies, most believed that the killer had to have some degree of anatomical knowledge to do what he did. In one case he removed a kidney from the front rather than from the side, and did not damage any of the surrounding organs while doing so. In another case he removed the sexual organs with one clean stroke of the knife. Given the time circumstances of the crimes (outside, often in near total darkness, keeping one eye out for the approach of others, and under extremely tight time constraints), the Ripper almost certainly would have had some experience in using his knife.

http://www.casebook.org/intro.html

All the best!

[Rosella]

I think there was a fair bit of rivalry. That comes through in memoirs of various police officers including Smith. One of the main reasons the City Police differed from the Met was in experience in dealing with homicides. There were far far fewer murders committed in the City of London than in the Metropolitan District, only 15 between 1832 and 1892. The COL's main source of work for senior officers was, as you might imagine, in investigating financial frauds, thefts and scams.

The London Press found the COL officers from Smith down far more agreeable because they were more willing to speak to reporters, give a few pieces of information than the Met, whom journalists found incredibly frustrating, I'm sure. In concequence the COL police got a far better write-up in newspapers.

[Craig H]

Hi Chris

Glad I'm not on my own in writing or talking to myself ?????

Thanks also for the link to information on City of London Police hospital.

Would be interesting to know if any local police officials developed any medical knowledge from their involvement there ?

Craig

[DJA]

Hang on,I'll ask my Cockatoo........................................

He reckons they catch it from humans.

[Craig H]

Hi Rosella

Thx for your post.

Yes - I was also thinking about the hunting line.

Memoirs I've read of the time (including McNaghten and Smith) both talk about their passion for hunting.... and of course McNaghten talks about hunting jackels.

I also think there is something in this conflict between the two police forces. I can see how someone from City of London Police (or Railway Police) would have enjoyed seeing Metropolitan Police be embarrassed and ridiculed in public.

Also interesting in the Catherine Eddowes inquest how the Coroner or Jury foreman was critical of Metropolitan police practices.

I understand COL police were seen as more professional

Craig