Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Jeff Leahy]

I didn't reply on the grounds that agreeing with Trevor Marriot might put me in the very uncool league…but hey ripperology is always a strange set of bed-fellows…we agree with some and disagree with others..

But yes, 'Trevor'…I agree…(Swollow)

Yours Jeff

PS Erreta, off the subject, we have been, following a number of your leads and suggestions…Have at least pin down one ex's as type 'B' Cluster thanks to your comments.J&Cx

[Errata]

I should have clarified "confined space" by saying a confined space open to the public where the killer might have been disturbed or seen.

Most serial killers have a motive for their crimes, clearly we don't know what the killers motive was in these murders. But if it is to be believed that organ removal was part of the motive, then we have to ask if that be the case, why stab and mutilate the abdomens in such a way that it would damage the organs and also inhibit the removal of the organs,

These were frenzied attacks would it be possible for a killer to suddenly stop and regain composure enough to surgically remove organs

And if the killer were a medical student or an anatomist why not simply turn up at the local mortuary each morning and lawfully obtain such specimens ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

I'm not sure he did that much damage opening them up. I mean, I'm surprised the intestines weren't chewed to hell, but they were intact. So he's cutting shallow with bad tools. It appears that by the time he cracks the abdomen he's pretty calm. He's not calm with the neck. But it's possible that the mutilations to the neck provide enough of a cathartic release to give him steady hands for the rest.

I mean, let's face it. There is no part of this that is rational. It's logical, but it's not rational. It's having good math with no science. Everything is dependent on the why. Why he takes the organs, why he gets excited about some things but not others, why he works in the open, why he chose who he chose. All of it boils down to motive. So none of this makes sense. We don't have the important variables for the equation. I mean, we all got theories. But this isn't rational. There is no "Well of course he did this because of reason A". There is no of course. There are things I believe to be true that I can make a good argument that the exact opposite is true. I don't believe it, but I recognize the possibility.

But there is no way this makes sense. It doesn't make sense for a medical professional to do this, because first of all, they can do it and get paid for it, but secondly they are exposed to this all the time. There is nothing special about it, so why go out and recreate something that isn't special? It doesn't make sense for butcher to do this for the same reasons, even if a butcher is a serial killer, why bring your work to your hobby? If this is how he winds down, why bring the work stuff? The few times a butcher has been a serial killer, being a butcher was only useful for disposing of the body. Mostly they were violent rapists.

I would expect someone who wants to open people up wants to do that because there is some kind of taboo to it that they want to violate. Something forbidden they want to explore. Well that lets out anyone who works on anything in the animal kingdom. Doctors, butchers, fishmongers, they sort of live in open bodies for 9 hours a day. A secretary on the other hand, death and bodies and innards still hold some fascination. But back to the original hand, anatomical knowledge, surgical skill, etc. aside, Jack was quite good with a knife.

Whatever was going on, he killed these women because he wanted to. He wanted them to die. He may have seen it as an unfortunate necessity, he may have rejoiced in their deaths, we don't know. But this killer didn't want organs. He wanted trophies. He wanted tangible proof of success. Maybe as a later masturbatory aid, maybe because it meant there was one less breeding woman out there, who knows? But while the organs were super important, they weren't the point. He didn't risk everything to get a uterus. He risked everything to watch a woman die at his hands. That's the addiction, whatever other set dressing there may be. And we know this because there are other ways of getting organs. Gein functioned for years on grave robbing alone. It's possible. The fact that he did not pursue other avenues is because he didn't want to. Whether he realized it or not, the act of killing is what was important. And he may not have known it. I have always argued that he was a mission oriented serial killer, which would certainly lead everyone including him to believe that the mission was the point. And it may be. But he didn't keep doing it because he was good at his "job". He kept going back because he enjoyed it.

So the basic tenet of why any serial killer does what he does is that he likes it. He gets a rush from it. I don't know why the Ripper killed women and took their organs. I don't what his motives were, what his background was, what his need was, none of that. But I can say with absolute certainty that whatever he did, he did it because he wanted to. I don't know why he wanted to, but this isn't about reason or logic. He was like an addict, chasing a high. But if a killer pursues a victim the way a drunk pursues a drink, it might make sense why he was not making safe choices. Because addicts don't make safe choices.

[Trevor Marriott]

Not a bit. Only by birth. My dad was head of OB/GYN at a university hospital, and my mom was an ER nurse. And I teach sex ed, so aside from being well versed in the astonishing crap people come up with when it has to do with reproduction (if someone ever asks me about jumping up and down again I swear to god....) I also live with the relevant anatomical models. Literally. I need more space so the penis etc. is on my dryer, and the uterus etc. is on my dresser.

But I will say that lots of serial killers have had no problems hanging out with corpses in a confined space. Even unsafe spaces. Bundy, Kemper, Gein, Dahmer, Gacy, Chase, Fish, Holmes, Rifkin, off the top of my head. So I'm not sure that's a good argument against.

I should have clarified "confined space" by saying a confined space open to the public where the killer might have been disturbed or seen.

Most serial killers have a motive for their crimes, clearly we don't know what the killers motive was in these murders. But if it is to be believed that organ removal was part of the motive, then we have to ask if that be the case, why stab and mutilate the abdomens in such a way that it would damage the organs and also inhibit the removal of the organs,

These were frenzied attacks would it be possible for a killer to suddenly stop and regain composure enough to surgically remove organs

And if the killer were a medical student or an anatomist why not simply turn up at the local mortuary each morning and lawfully obtain such specimens ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Errata]

But we are not talking about the expertise of surgeons today. In 1888 there were very few with the knowledge and expertise capable of performing these removals in daylight let alone in the dark.

Beside the doctor by his own admissions stated it would have taken him some considerable time. So would a killer have wanted to remain in a confined space with a dead body for some considerable time whist trying to effect these removals?

Can I ask if you are a medically qualified to give an opinion on these issues ?

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

Not a bit. Only by birth. My dad was head of OB/GYN at a university hospital, and my mom was an ER nurse. And I teach sex ed, so aside from being well versed in the astonishing crap people come up with when it has to do with reproduction (if someone ever asks me about jumping up and down again I swear to god....) I also live with the relevant anatomical models. Literally. I need more space so the penis etc. is on my dryer, and the uterus etc. is on my dresser.

But I will say that lots of serial killers have had no problems hanging out with corpses in a confined space. Even unsafe spaces. Bundy, Kemper, Gein, Dahmer, Gacy, Chase, Fish, Holmes, Rifkin, off the top of my head. So I'm not sure that's a good argument against.

[Errata]

Primate reproductive systems are similar because of evolutionary conserved genes. The point about an Ape vs a Monkey is that if you want a monkey part, you can just grab the whole monkey and bag it. In apes we are talking organ size, location and complexity of a human being. In short, farm animals don't and never will offer any insight into human anatomy.

Many organisms take medicines naturally. In the case of Neanderthals, they appeared to be storing herbs. This is quite different to going to the herb location for meds. Its bringing the meds back and preserving them in some way.

I'm not entirely sure this matters, given that I was only using the term Neanderthal as a descriptive, and there are no neanderthals to get offended by my implication that being a neanderthal meant that they would lack anatomical and medical sophistication. Which they did, by 19th century standards.

Some suggestions going around that Eddowes and Chapman are not the work of JtR. So two killers? are lying their victims on the ground before slitting their throats, twice and doing the following...

I know that some people think that, I am not one of them.

That last bit is quite clear. Phillips believes if he clinically tried to replicate what he was seeing it would be the best part of an hour. If he was to randomly try it, he would be struggling for 15 minutes doing it. So he judged the comparisons of random and directed. Phillips is describing why he believes the womb removal was done with considerable knowledge of human anatomy. For example, if you really wanted that area why not just take the whole of the reproduction system. It would be easier to remove the whole lot in a chunk than to go inside and work around. Yet JtR didn't take the reproductive system. He only took inner organs belonging to it. He didn't seem to acquire outer physiology at all.

My father (the OB/GYN surgeon) agrees with Phillips. And he agrees with me. And it's not about medical technicalities, it's about human behavior. My dad says it would take him a while to replicate those injuries. Just like it takes awhile to trace the Mona Lisa. It takes longer to trace than it does to simply draw. But if he didn't have to replicate the injuries, and he just had to get the uterus out, he said he could do it in less than two minutes. The man has removed a lot of uteruses. So he's with Phillips.

But he's with me that a person doesn't have to be a doctor or a butcher to get it done, and get it done quickly. In a large part because of removing the block from Chapman. He get's the block, he goes home, he trims out the uterus. And he can see the connections, the ligaments, where it attaches to what, and he has everything he needs to know about how to remove just the uterus right there in his hands. He knew how to find it, he cut out a block, worked on that block, and thats all he needs to get the uterus out of Eddowes.

As to why not the whole reproductive system, who knows? External genitalia i s associated with sex, internal genitalia is associated with child bearing. So maybe he was completely disinterested in a sexual aspect? Maybe he is punishing women for him being born? Who knows. It's there for him if he wants it. He doesn't want it for some reason.

Nicking the renal artery is a catastrophic surgical fail. Yet what Dr. Brown described wasn't a knick. It was a careful removal. We know the kidney wasn't stabbed through before the membrane/fat removed because the membrane didn't show signs of being stabbed through. The cut through the membrane didn't indicate to Brown that the kidney would have been cut either. The connections to the kidney are within the fat and hidden away. What Brown describes is something more closer to a deliberate exposing the kidney, cutting it appropriately and removing it carefully than accidental.

If a connection to the kidney can be cut by accident, it can be cut purposefully. Getting into the membrane is like filleting a fish. So that's not hard. And when you feel a kidney in situ, it feels like there is a membrane over it. Clearly you cannot pick up the kidney, and you can feel where the pocket is, which would be where the membrane starts. Once the membrane was cut, we have no idea what happened. He could have yanked on it and found it to be attached, and cut the attachments. It doesn't matter if they are hidden, if he tries to pull out the kidney, he will know exactly where those attachment are.

I would expect a gynaecologist to have medical skill though. They would have knowledge of organs through seeing them exposed. The difference between historical anatomy from feeling and the modern revolution of cadaver anatomy lessons are a universe apart.

This isn't rocket science. The fact that a gynecologist does this every day illustrates that finding a uterus is possible through feel. But let me try this a different way. Let's say you are looking at the tops of trees, and you need to isolate one particular tree. So you send your buddy down to shake the tree you want, so you can see it from the top. The foliage you see shaking? That's your tree. The still foliage to your left? Not your tree. Same with a uterus. You manipulate the vagina and cervix in any manner you see fit, poking, shaking, pulling, whatever. The uterus will move. Because they are attached. If you grabbed the trachea, the lungs would shake. Not a ton, these things are strapped in, but they move.

Dr. Bond's pathology report on Kelly is the worst of the lot. He even claims she is naked in bed, when it is clear she was wearing a chemise from the photos. He omits a lot and says little. Wouldn't surprise me if he was the one who smashed the pipe in the fireplace too.

Dr.Brown is simply not telling us the reality when he said the organs have no professional value. We know today that they did. Specifically uterus, kidneys and hearts as medical specimens kept in jars that conferred a higher educational status for doctors that owned them.

Organs have to be removed in a particular way in order to be of use, and these organs weren't removed that way. Maybe the kidney, but the uteruses certainly weren't, and the heart wasn't. And anatomical specimen uterus has to be intact with fallopian tubes and ovaries, and at the very least the cervix has to be there. It should be the entire vaginal canal as well, but a cut above the cervix renders it useless. And the heart has to have at least an inch or two of the aorta, vena cava, pulmonary veins, etc. They also had to be washed and preserved immediately, because if bacteria has a chance to form the whole thing rots within two month.

Brown is right on this one. If the killer wanted them preserved for his own use, maybe. But he wasn't selling them. They were wrong, and frankly while the Ripper is loose who is going to buy a sketchy uterus off a guy?

[Trevor Marriott]

In this case it doesn't show anatomical knowledge. He removed an organ block. Essentially he cut a cube around he uterus, so he got things he didn't want. Like part of the bladder. Which is why specificity on Eddowes and Kelly is important. Any idiot can get the ovaries etc. with an organ block. But he didn't do that with either Eddowes or Kelly, so knowing whether or not they were there is what would tell us if he has skills. But they don't say. Which is irritating.

On the other hand, if surgeons today remove uteruses with a scope and a tube and never see anything more than what is right in front of a 12 mm lens, I'm betting people can do it in the dark with an open field.

But we are not talking about the expertise of surgeons today. In 1888 there were very few with the knowledge and expertise capable of performing these removals in daylight let alone in the dark.

Beside the doctor by his own admissions stated it would have taken him some considerable time. So would a killer have wanted to remain in a confined space with a dead body for some considerable time whist trying to effect these removals?

Can I ask if you are a medically qualified to give an opinion on these issues ?

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[Errata]

I think the term appendages could also relate to the Fallopian tubes. So in facts both could have been removed plus the uterus itself

If that be the case that certainly tends to show anatomical knowledge and the level of skill that required would far exceed the knowledge of a butcher or a horse slaughterer.

Could anyone effect those removals in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen? No !

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

In this case it doesn't show anatomical knowledge. He removed an organ block. Essentially he cut a cube around he uterus, so he got things he didn't want. Like part of the bladder. Which is why specificity on Eddowes and Kelly is important. Any idiot can get the ovaries etc. with an organ block. But he didn't do that with either Eddowes or Kelly, so knowing whether or not they were there is what would tell us if he has skills. But they don't say. Which is irritating.

On the other hand, if surgeons today remove uteruses with a scope and a tube and never see anything more than what is right in front of a 12 mm lens, I'm betting people can do it in the dark with an open field.

[Trevor Marriott]

Hello Jeff.

"That following the Chapman murder the idea began to form that a medical student might be responsible. And Dr Brown went with this theory. However, faced with the reality of the Eddowes murder it soon became apparent very little expertise was required. An imitator was suggested."

Bing, bing, bing. All expenses paid vacation (airline tickets excepted) to Pflugerville, Texas and Texas barbeque.

When you're good, you're REALLY good.

Cheers.
LC

Like a medical student or an antatomist at a mortuary ?

Best put the vacation tickets on hold

[Batman]

Poor Indy monkey...

You are right, except that human uteruses actually have more in common with monkeys than apes. I don't know why.

Primate reproductive systems are similar because of evolutionary conserved genes. The point about an Ape vs a Monkey is that if you want a monkey part, you can just grab the whole monkey and bag it. In apes we are talking organ size, location and complexity of a human being. In short, farm animals don't and never will offer any insight into human anatomy.

I'm sure they were lovely. But magic and religion existed for millenia before medicine, and without evidence that they took medicinal herbs, we are looking at magic. Which I would love to discuss with them, but I don't want one taking out my inflamed spleen.

Many organisms take medicines naturally. In the case of Neanderthals, they appeared to be storing herbs. This is quite different to going to the herb location for meds. Its bringing the meds back and preserving them in some way.

The only thing kidneylike in the back of the abdomen is the kidneys. And you can feel them. You can feel them from the outside and the inside. You gotta press pretty hard from the outside, so I don't recommend making a habit of it, but you can feel them. And it's possible to cut open the membrane without knowing you were going to run into one. Adapt or die, so to speak. And once you do that and try to take out the kidney, you realize it's hung up and you cut the strings, so to speak. You only have to be precise if you want the person you are cutting to live. We also don't know that he took the kidney intact.

Some suggestions going around that Eddowes and Chapman are not the work of JtR. So two killers? are lying their victims on the ground before slitting their throats, twice and doing the following...

Dr. Brown on Eddowes - The peritoneal lining was cut through on the left side and the left kidney carefully taken out and removed. The left renal artery was cut through. I should say that someone who knew the position of the kidney must have done it.

The lining membrane over the uterus was cut through. The womb was cut through horizontally, leaving a stump of three quarters of an inch. The rest of the womb had been taken away with some of the ligaments. The vagina and cervix of the womb was uninjured.


Dr. Phillips on Chapman - The abdomen had been entirely laid open: the intestines, severed from their mesenteric attachments, had been lifted out of the body and placed on the shoulder of the corpse; whilst from the pelvis, the uterus and its appendages with the upper portion of the vagina and the posterior two thirds of the bladder, had been entirely removed. No trace of these parts could be found and the incisions were cleanly cut, avoiding the rectum, and dividing the vagina low enough to avoid injury to the cervix uteri. Obviously the work was that of an expert- of one, at least, who had such knowledge of anatomical or pathological examinations as to be enabled to secure the pelvic organs with one sweep of the knife, which must therefore must have at least 5 or 6 inches in length, probably more. The appearance of the cuts confirmed him in the opinion that the instrument, like the one which divided the neck, had been of a very sharp character. The mode in which the knife had been used seemed to indicate great anatomical knowledge. He thought he himself could not have performed all the injuries he described, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If he had down it in a deliberate way such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon it probably would have taken him the best part of an hour."


That last bit is quite clear. Phillips believes if he clinically tried to replicate what he was seeing it would be the best part of an hour. If he was to randomly try it, he would be struggling for 15 minutes doing it. So he judged the comparisons of random and directed. Phillips is describing why he believes the womb removal was done with considerable knowledge of human anatomy. For example, if you really wanted that area why not just take the whole of the reproduction system. It would be easier to remove the whole lot in a chunk than to go inside and work around. Yet JtR didn't take the reproductive system. He only took inner organs belonging to it. He didn't seem to acquire outer physiology at all.

The ureter and arteries come from the center, not the top. And then both run out a little ways, so there is some play once you crack the membrane. In fact it's one of the more common accidental surgical deaths, nicking the renal artery. Less common than nicking the liver or bowel, but not at all unheard of. It's a real risk in any abdominal surgery. I had my ureter nicked when I had laproscopic surgery on my ovaries, so that was a bad three days. I mean they fixed it, I was never in danger of dying from it. Infection maybe, but it's something that becomes apparent within a few hours of closing, so it's not like I collapsed on the sidewalk or something. Screaming in the hospital bed more like. But I think a good rule of thumb is that if a doctor can accidentally do it, an inexperienced killer can purposefully do it. These murders are a lot by feel. Looking at it makes it seem daunting, but when you're operating by feel, your already intimidated. A little bit of confusing anatomy isn't going to faze you.

Nicking the renal artery is a catastrophic surgical fail. Yet what Dr. Brown described wasn't a knick. It was a careful removal. We know the kidney wasn't stabbed through before the membrane/fat removed because the membrane didn't show signs of being stabbed through. The cut through the membrane didn't indicate to Brown that the kidney would have been cut either. The connections to the kidney are within the fat and hidden away. What Brown describes is something more closer to a deliberate exposing the kidney, cutting it appropriately and removing it carefully than accidental.

Okay, I'm just going to drop the obvious here. Clearly you have never seen a gynecologist. Because they palpate your uterus from the outside while jamming two fingers into your cervix from the inside. And yes it hurts. It's hurts rather a lot, never mind feeling like some weird x rated puppet. They place their hand above the pubic bone, and then push the cervix. The uterus pops up over the pubic arch and can then be palpated. That's all I'm talking about. Push the cervix, the uterus pops over the pubic bone. When you do that, the organ that moves is the uterus. Alternatively, you can push on the cervix with your finger, and reach into the pubic space to find your finger from the outside. Whatever is on the end of that path, that's the uterus. If you know the vagina is connected to the uterus, you can find it.

I would expect a gynaecologist to have medical skill though. They would have knowledge of organs through seeing them exposed. The difference between historical anatomy from feeling and the modern revolution of cadaver anatomy lessons are a universe apart.

I certainly don't know why the other reproductive structures are not mentioned with Kelly, and especially in her case, that kind of knowledge is important.

Dr. Bond's pathology report on Kelly is the worst of the lot. He even claims she is naked in bed, when it is clear she was wearing a chemise from the photos. He omits a lot and says little. Wouldn't surprise me if he was the one who smashed the pipe in the fireplace too.

Dr.Brown is simply not telling us the reality when he said the organs have no professional value. We know today that they did. Specifically uterus, kidneys and hearts as medical specimens kept in jars that conferred a higher educational status for doctors that owned them.

[lynn cates]

the winner

Hello Jeff.

"That following the Chapman murder the idea began to form that a medical student might be responsible. And Dr Brown went with this theory. However, faced with the reality of the Eddowes murder it soon became apparent very little expertise was required. An imitator was suggested."

Bing, bing, bing. All expenses paid vacation (airline tickets excepted) to Pflugerville, Texas and Texas barbeque.

When you're good, you're REALLY good.

Cheers.
LC

[Jeff Leahy]

Hello Jeff.

"But knowing how to use a short sharp blade 6 to 7 inches in length. Someone used to cutting cow and pig intestines for pet food offal. Yeah I can see some experience of that being very useful."

Pig butcher? My friend, you should be a prophet. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

All part of the Ripperolgist sausage factory

yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Even the pathologists realized that the knife used was the type of long thin blade that would require this butcher hypothesis to have a 'ground down' blade. Meaning modification. Modification to resemble what we call an amputation knife. Again we find the butcher being modified to incorporate a tool used by those with medical knowledge/skill. Medical knife in the hands of someone with medical skill is much more parsimonous.

Yeah but there is quite a bit of divided opinion on the length of the blade. I usually use 7" as my estimate.

However Dr Philips says a 6" blade and later ups it to 7 or 8 inches.

The knife you site belonging to Don Rumblow was used as a gardening tool for a long time and is more probably related to a Fanien Murder.

But frankly i think a case could be made that the wounds inflicted suggest a shorter blade than a surgeons amputation knife.

A well ground knife, kept sharp in an abitoire would do the job, but it could just simply be explained by a loon ball obsessed with knives keeping it well sharpened…

Then you have the problem of the Clasp knife used on Millwood and Tabram and of course the bayonet or Dagger?

Yet there is no scientific evidence between slaughterhouse experience and serial killers.

How many other serial killers attacked their victims on the street and left them disembowelled? I can't think of another example in the UK.

If there was I think Animal Liberation groups would be having a field day. Does slaughtering animals confer an advantage to someone trying to murder a human by throat slashing and disembowelling? I think little. Two very different anatomy. Very different behaviour between cattle and humans etc. All it would give is a ' desensitized' experience to death of an animal. Yet serial killers of this type don't require the need to be desensitized because there is no personality trait in these types of people to be desensitized from. It really becomes moo---t.

It doesn't become Moot if your suggesting that the killer had some basic anatomical knowledge and knew how to cut and slash intestines.

It only becomes Moot if you disregard the medical evidence as a whole and simply go on what Dr Bond says.

If removed, it would have been by the direction of the coroner by request of Dr. Brown. Why THIS Freudian slip? Well you seem to like the term political 'hot potato' and I think this was one of them. The medical community (who hadn't examined the bodies) were under investigation as JtR candidates. Anyone carrying a medical bag was under scrutiny from the Whitechapel public.

Clearly there were social pecking orders very important in Victorian society. And every arm chair detective had a theory to push. There had been riots in Trafalgar square the year previously. Socialism, liberty fraternity. And along comes a boggy man.

Yes I agree there were political pressures from top to bottom. This made it very important for the medical men to give serious thought to what they said.

But thats a long way from giving medical opinion they did not agree with. A very long way.

In the UK today we have the 'chilcote inquirerey' There is a big gap between cover up and conspiracy and political reality.

There is a clear disagreement between the City Police and Met Police on medical knowledge. This is less so between Doctors. Mr.Crawford gave the city police position. I believe Dr. Brown didn't want to seem to contradict those he works with on this matter much so decided to keep it to himself, which he did in later days by saying his suspect was a medical student.

I think it the other way around. That following the Chapman murder the idea began to form that a medical Student might be responsible. And Dr Brown went with this theory. However faced with the reality of the Eddows murder it soon became apparent very little expertise was required. An imitator was suggested.

So Dr Brown was very cautious how far he would go on Eddows

Yours Jeff

[Trevor Marriott]

Poor Indy monkey...

You are right, except that human uteruses actually have more in common with monkeys than apes. I don't know why. Maybe swinging around trees is more similar to walking upright than walking on all fours. Technically the two are similar, but apes tend to have longer slimmer uteruses.... And I'm just sitting here now wondering how the hell I know that. What was I doing that I felt the need to look that up at some point? What is my life?



Neanderthal the insult, not Neanderthal the species.

I'm sure they were lovely. But magic and religion existed for millenia before medicine, and without evidence that they took medicinal herbs, we are looking at magic. Which I would love to discuss with them, but I don't want one taking out my inflamed spleen.



The only thing kidneylike in the back of the abdomen is the kidneys. And you can feel them. You can feel them from the outside and the inside. You gotta press pretty hard from the outside, so I don't recommend making a habit of it, but you can feel them. And it's possible to cut open the membrane without knowing you were going to run into one. Adapt or die, so to speak. And once you do that and try to take out the kidney, you realize it's hung up and you cut the strings, so to speak. You only have to be precise if you want the person you are cutting to live. We also don't know that he took the kidney intact.

The ureter and arteries come from the center, not the top. And then both run out a little ways, so there is some play once you crack the membrane. In fact it's one of the more common accidental surgical deaths, nicking the renal artery. Less common than nicking the liver or bowel, but not at all unheard of. It's a real risk in any abdominal surgery. I had my ureter nicked when I had laproscopic surgery on my ovaries, so that was a bad three days. I mean they fixed it, I was never in danger of dying from it. Infection maybe, but it's something that becomes apparent within a few hours of closing, so it's not like I collapsed on the sidewalk or something. Screaming in the hospital bed more like. But I think a good rule of thumb is that if a doctor can accidentally do it, an inexperienced killer can purposefully do it. These murders are a lot by feel. Looking at it makes it seem daunting, but when you're operating by feel, your already intimidated. A little bit of confusing anatomy isn't going to faze you.



It's so sad Lovecraft was such a vitriolic racist. I'm a big fan of Cthulhu.

Okay, I'm just going to drop the obvious here. Clearly you have never seen a gynecologist. Because they palpate your uterus from the outside while jamming two fingers into your cervix from the inside. And yes it hurts. It's hurts rather a lot, never mind feeling like some weird x rated puppet. They place their hand above the pubic bone, and then push the cervix. The uterus pops up over the pubic arch and can then be palpated. That's all I'm talking about. Push the cervix, the uterus pops over the pubic bone. When you do that, the organ that moves is the uterus. Alternatively, you can push on the cervix with your finger, and reach into the pubic space to find your finger from the outside. Whatever is on the end of that path, that's the uterus. If you know the vagina is connected to the uterus, you can find it.

Now to be fair, we actually don't know a lot about what happened to the ovaries etc. With Annie Chapman, the coroner explicitly state that the uterus and it's appendages were gone. It seems reasonable to assume that means ovaries. Since her killer actually removed a tissue block rather than the organ itself, that makes sense. With Kate Eddowes, maybe, maybe not. One doctor refers to her "womb" with is a crappy term that really means nothing. But never means the ovaries. Otherwise it is described as her uterus being removed and some ligaments, but no mention of anything else. With Kelly, there is no mention of a lot of things. They found her uterus and her bladder, but no mention is made of ovaries, cervix, vagina, nothing.

The Victorians knew that that the uterus was not the vagina was not the ovaries was not the Fallopian tubes. That was standard medical knowledge. So one would think that when they say "uterus" they mean that organ, and that organ alone. And mostly they support that by using the appropriate names for the parts left behind. But no one ever specifically mentions ovaries, and I don't know why. I certainly don't know why the other reproductive structures are not mentioned with Kelly, and especially in her case, that kind of knowledge is important.

I think the term appendages could also relate to the Fallopian tubes. So in facts both could have been removed plus the uterus itself

If that be the case that certainly tends to show anatomical knowledge and the level of skill that required would far exceed the knowledge of a butcher or a horse slaughterer.

Could anyone effect those removals in almost total darkness from a blood filled abdomen? No !

https://www.trevormarriott.co.uk

[lynn cates]

word of prophecy

Hello Jeff.

"But knowing how to use a short sharp blade 6 to 7 inches in length. Someone used to cutting cow and pig intestines for pet food offal. Yeah I can see some experience of that being very useful."

Pig butcher? My friend, you should be a prophet. (heh-heh)

Cheers.
LC

[Errata]

Just a small but important point here. Monkeys are primates but are not apes, which is what we are. Monkeys sit on Indy Jones shoulder and eat bad dates. Apes can pull a person apart

And yes, there is no analog with farm animals.

Poor Indy monkey...

You are right, except that human uteruses actually have more in common with monkeys than apes. I don't know why. Maybe swinging around trees is more similar to walking upright than walking on all fours. Technically the two are similar, but apes tend to have longer slimmer uteruses.... And I'm just sitting here now wondering how the hell I know that. What was I doing that I felt the need to look that up at some point? What is my life?

Just another minor crib from me. Homo Neaderthalis actually buried their dead with artefacts and stuff. There is also evidence they gathered herbs in pouches like earlier medicine.

Neanderthal the insult, not Neanderthal the species.

I'm sure they were lovely. But magic and religion existed for millenia before medicine, and without evidence that they took medicinal herbs, we are looking at magic. Which I would love to discuss with them, but I don't want one taking out my inflamed spleen.

This is the part where I think imagination goes beyond the facts. A human kidney is within a fatty membrane. The renal artery and ureter are within the white fat at the top part of the kidney. The kidney was removed through the fatty tissue and the renal artery cut through within the fatty membrane. You have to get precise to do this.

This bit here -> http://biology.clc.uc.edu/fankhauser...5134259lbd.jpg <--- freed open left kidney from the fat with left renal artery shown.

The only thing kidneylike in the back of the abdomen is the kidneys. And you can feel them. You can feel them from the outside and the inside. You gotta press pretty hard from the outside, so I don't recommend making a habit of it, but you can feel them. And it's possible to cut open the membrane without knowing you were going to run into one. Adapt or die, so to speak. And once you do that and try to take out the kidney, you realize it's hung up and you cut the strings, so to speak. You only have to be precise if you want the person you are cutting to live. We also don't know that he took the kidney intact.

The ureter and arteries come from the center, not the top. And then both run out a little ways, so there is some play once you crack the membrane. In fact it's one of the more common accidental surgical deaths, nicking the renal artery. Less common than nicking the liver or bowel, but not at all unheard of. It's a real risk in any abdominal surgery. I had my ureter nicked when I had laproscopic surgery on my ovaries, so that was a bad three days. I mean they fixed it, I was never in danger of dying from it. Infection maybe, but it's something that becomes apparent within a few hours of closing, so it's not like I collapsed on the sidewalk or something. Screaming in the hospital bed more like. But I think a good rule of thumb is that if a doctor can accidentally do it, an inexperienced killer can purposefully do it. These murders are a lot by feel. Looking at it makes it seem daunting, but when you're operating by feel, your already intimidated. A little bit of confusing anatomy isn't going to faze you.

Yes imagination like having fingers from a H.P Lovecraft story about C'thula.

You got a external os, cervix, fallopian tubes, uterine cavity, fimbria and ovaries. You would be expect an unskilled person to be removing the fallopian tubes like they are arteries or intestines. I think they had to have had more anatomical knowledge than the experience you are talking about.

It's so sad Lovecraft was such a vitriolic racist. I'm a big fan of Cthulhu.

Okay, I'm just going to drop the obvious here. Clearly you have never seen a gynecologist. Because they palpate your uterus from the outside while jamming two fingers into your cervix from the inside. And yes it hurts. It's hurts rather a lot, never mind feeling like some weird x rated puppet. They place their hand above the pubic bone, and then push the cervix. The uterus pops up over the pubic arch and can then be palpated. That's all I'm talking about. Push the cervix, the uterus pops over the pubic bone. When you do that, the organ that moves is the uterus. Alternatively, you can push on the cervix with your finger, and reach into the pubic space to find your finger from the outside. Whatever is on the end of that path, that's the uterus. If you know the vagina is connected to the uterus, you can find it.

Now to be fair, we actually don't know a lot about what happened to the ovaries etc. With Annie Chapman, the coroner explicitly state that the uterus and it's appendages were gone. It seems reasonable to assume that means ovaries. Since her killer actually removed a tissue block rather than the organ itself, that makes sense. With Kate Eddowes, maybe, maybe not. One doctor refers to her "womb" with is a crappy term that really means nothing. But never means the ovaries. Otherwise it is described as her uterus being removed and some ligaments, but no mention of anything else. With Kelly, there is no mention of a lot of things. They found her uterus and her bladder, but no mention is made of ovaries, cervix, vagina, nothing.

The Victorians knew that that the uterus was not the vagina was not the ovaries was not the Fallopian tubes. That was standard medical knowledge. So one would think that when they say "uterus" they mean that organ, and that organ alone. And mostly they support that by using the appropriate names for the parts left behind. But no one ever specifically mentions ovaries, and I don't know why. I certainly don't know why the other reproductive structures are not mentioned with Kelly, and especially in her case, that kind of knowledge is important.