Arbitrary Selective Rejection and Acceptence of Coincidences

[Hunter]

In the "Ultimate" it is referred to as deleted. Page 231, 2001 edition, paperback.

[Wickerman]

Which seems to be a timely question....

Surgeons are set to end 150 years of inverse snobbery by dispensing with the title of "Mr" or "Miss" and adopting the more elevated "Dr", like their physician colleagues.

Moves are afoot to end the centuries-old tradition which sees the most highly lauded and best rewarded members of the medical establishment addressed by the same title as plumbers and butchers.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/dont-call-us-mister-say-surgeons-after-150-years-6146918.html

[Batman]

In the "Ultimate" it is referred to as deleted. Page 231, 2001 edition, paperback.

That is interesting that it was deleted. So he said medical knowledge and it was deleted from the inquest statement. I wonder how the deletion was done. That would be important.

On p.208 Swanson gives the MET position that they had hopes to narrow it down to a certain class of person. Swanson agreed that the CITY Eddowes report gave no indication of the hand of qualified surgeon while still acknowleding that the MET position can incorporate it, as well as a medical student, butchers are also included.


Jeff,
As I said before the Jack the Butcher hypothesis is redundant to anyone familiar with animal anatomy. It's as good as saying Jack the Fishmunger can accidentially remove a human female kidney from its fatty membrane, a heart from below with the tops severed and womb removals.

Another thing is that Dr. Brown claimed that the removed parts would have no professional purpose. Yet we know that having specimen collections at that time conferred some sort of higher status on medical practitioners that had them... and quacks.

Ask yourself where the womb is and then look at a side profile of one. These aren't accidents.

[Jeff Leahy]

Which seems to be a timely question....

Surgeons are set to end 150 years of inverse snobbery by dispensing with the title of "Mr" or "Miss" and adopting the more elevated "Dr", like their physician colleagues.

Moves are afoot to end the centuries-old tradition which sees the most highly lauded and best rewarded members of the medical establishment addressed by the same title as plumbers and butchers.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...s-6146918.html

Yeah but that was 2005 and the specialist treating her foot is still Mr Singh..

Frankly the metal work X-rays should qualify them to put up a good straight shelf

They're absolutely brilliant at Guys by the way…don't go anywhere else!! insist on the best..

Yours Jeff

[Jeff Leahy]

Jeff,
As I said before the Jack the Butcher hypothesis is redundant to anyone familiar with animal anatomy. It's as good as saying Jack the Fishmunger can accidentially remove a human female kidney from its fatty membrane, a heart from below with the tops severed and womb removals.

Jack required no expertise. Only anatomical knowledge according to Dr Brown. And he was clearly careful what he said. Your probably correct that he privately favoured the Medical Student theory but must have been aware of the total mess Eddows was left in, showing little 'expertise' so he choose his words very carefully as it appears did the other Doctors at the Eddows inquest.

Another thing is that Dr. Brown claimed that the removed parts would have no professional purpose. Yet we know that having specimen collections at that time conferred some sort of higher status on medical practitioners that had them... and quacks.

And? Is this a push for Tumbelty? We have no idea what happened to the missing organs.

Ask yourself where the womb is and then look at a side profile of one. These aren't accidents.

Obviously their not accidents. They are committed by person or persons unknown… But they didn't require any specific medical expertise.

And those at the Eddows inquiry were clearly careful how they worded their opinions.

Sam Flynn : "Much has been made of the supposed skill evidenced by the evisceration performed on Eddowes, in particular reference to the removal of the kidney. This perception has almost certainly been bolstered by the statement of Dr Brown that the killer must have had “some anatomical knowledge”. However, in deference to Dr Brown, I think it only fair to point out that not once did he state that the killer possessed surgical skill. A careful reading of the inquest transcripts and verbatim press reports will confirm that Brown only ever refers to anatomical knowledge and any skill that was shown was clearly not of the order required of a medical man. In Dr Brown’s own words, someone “in the habit of cutting up animals” would have known as much.

Despite popular opinion to the contrary, the nephrectomy performed on the left kidney appears to have been pretty crude. There was a tongue-like flap cut into the abdominal aorta (which runs down past the renal arteries), stabs to the liver (part of which lies above the left kidney) and the spleen (directly above the left kidney). Whilst it is true that the kidney is “covered by a membrane”, it is possible that the kidney was a little more exposed, as Dr Brown indicates that the “membrane” (specifically, the peritoneum) may already have been partly cut, perhaps in the process of laying open the abdomen and removing the intestines. Brown’s notes clearly indicate that there were random jabs and stabs into the viscera and vasculature surrounding the region from which the kidney was removed."


Yours Jeff

[Pcdunn]

I have been following this thread with interest, and now I'm curious about where, exactly, was this "anatomical knowledge" supposed to have been gained, if not from training as a doctor, medical student, field surgeon's aide, undertaker?
It isn't that many decades from the time when grave robbers sold human corpses to medical schools for use as educational tools. The rules had been relaxed to make it easier to obtain human cadavers, but this doesn't mean every school at lower levels than colleges had one available for anatomy classes.

Books on anatomy existed, but would the average illiterate or half-literate denizen of Whitechapel have read one? This is less about expertise than about class, I think, and the "cutting up animals" reference is an attempt to reconcile the police notion that Jack was a butcher or horse slaughterer with the forensic evidence.

[Batman]

I have been following this thread with interest, and now I'm curious about where, exactly, was this "anatomical knowledge" supposed to have been gained, if not from training as a doctor, medical student, field surgeon's aide, undertaker?

The most liberal smash and grab hypothesis has JtR without any scientific/medical/anatomical knowledge. This was made by Dr. Bond.

As a note Dr. Bond also dashed the Jack the Butcher hypothesis by saying a butcher was more skilled.

It isn't that many decades from the time when grave robbers sold human corpses to medical schools for use as educational tools.

"Burke & Hare" even killed people to make money from the corpses.

The rules had been relaxed to make it easier to obtain human cadavers, but this doesn't mean every school at lower levels than colleges had one available for anatomy classes.

One reason why there is doubt over the From Hell kidney is because the medical examiners believed a student could have obtained it from a body being prepared for anatomical pathology classes. If a student/lab assistant could do that then security must have been quite relaxed.

Books on anatomy existed, but would the average illiterate or half-literate denizen of Whitechapel have read one?

Very good point. If such a book existed in the hands of a poor person it would have been sold for money long ago. I would favour that the sort of book we need to be talking about is like a civil war surgeons field book that cover amputations. There would also be sections detailing ways to remove organs. What's important from a modern point of view is that both womb and to a lesser degree kidney removal (nephrectomy) are not in themselves fatal. A patient can live with one kidney (accidentally discovered in medicine btw) and no womb. So as far as I am concerned a human cadaver is not necessary for JtR. A live person would have done just fine.

This is less about expertise than about class, I think, and the "cutting up animals" reference is an attempt to reconcile the police notion that Jack was a butcher or horse slaughterer with the forensic evidence.

Absolutely.

Let's face it. Modern crimonology frowns on this idea that serial killers who 'butcher' where somehow once in the profession of 'animal slaughter'. Modern crimonology points to animal torture in a persons youth as a catalyst for later violence with lust murderer pathology.

This was even well understood by the middle of the 20th century. For example in 1947 Elizabeth Short (The Black Dahlia) was murdered in a way strongly resembling Eddowes mutilations to the point that it has been suggested that the killer was reproducing something that JtR had done. 25 suspects. None are butchers to my knowledge. Why? Because forensic pathology had come heaps forward.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Dahlia_suspects

This first suspect is very interesting in this case. A way more convincing than say, Kozminski.

So really, are we still entertain this age old myth about JtR being a butcher today? If Nichols had been murdered near a fishmonger shop people would be proposing Jack the Fishmonger. No, she was murdered near the lower class slaughter yards. So the mutilations where instantly pinned on a butcher and the shakedown of Whitechapel butchers began. Probably no other class of worker was more interviewed and put under suspicion because of this... and where did it get us? I would say, nowhere. Likewise leather apron was hunted partially because of this characture.

I think animal slaughterer/butcher is a moot point. It simply doesn't matter in today's modern forensic pathology. Also there are actual peer-review papers on forenstic pathology pointing out that the medical profession has offerred up numerious examples of less than angelic behaviour including the pathology of a lust murderer seen in something *like* the Whitechapel murders.

Moo!

[Jeff Leahy]

Let's face it. Modern crimonology frowns on this idea that serial killers who 'butcher' where somehow once in the profession of 'animal slaughter'. Modern crimonology points to animal torture in a persons youth as a catalyst for later violence with lust murderer pathology.

!

Crap, it simply says a 'butcher is capable of achieving the end result.

Everything else is prejudice that your opinion places upon it, get real

A butcher would have such knowledge….however so would a medical student a vet or a horse slaughter

You take your pick you take your choice but you are trying to claim something that has no rational

Many people might have the knowledge

Yours Jeff

[Batman]

The butcher interpretation fails on its own lack of merits. Just ask any question about it.

For example why should slaughtering an ungulate like a bovine confer any advantage to JtR over say a fishmonger or poultry preparation?

All one is claiming here is professional gutting experience on scales that are large enough to a mimic a human. Modern forensic pathology would deem this view superfluous.

Oh yeah just another coincidence Nichols was killed next to a slaughter yard and the killer gaining butcher status.

There is zero evidence of 'butchering' in the murders. Don't you think JtR would have actually literally butchered if a butcher?

[Jeff Leahy]

The butcher interpretation fails on its own lack of merits. Just ask any question about it.

For example why should slaughtering an ungulate like a bovine confer any advantage to JtR over say a fishmonger or poultry preparation?


There is zero evidence of 'butchering' in the murders. Don't you think JtR would have actually literally butchered if a butcher?

It simply comes down to the skill and butchering requirements. A master Butcher getting the best cuts of meat? No I don't think Jack shows any signs of this.

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 ofal. Yeah I can see some experience of that being very useful.

Knowing how to cut an animals throat correctly so it bleeds and reduces blood preasure before you start to disembowl it. Yes very useful knowledge to have in context of these murders.

Knowing how to carve, dress and present the sunday roast. Not so useful.

However you seem to have accepted that Dr Brown was careful of his wording at the inquest. As a word was redacted. And this is the case made by A to Z authors, that when pressed medical opinion was careful to express the 'expertise' discussed at the Chapman inquest… So opinion about the Skill of the killer changed at the time of the Eddows inquest.

Yet I'm confused whether your saying the Dr's did this of their own violation or were forced into it by police. If the later is this not a conspiracy theory?

Yours Jeff

PS I'm not about until tomorrow as I'm off for a jolly jaunt to Colney Hatch and Leavesdon…have fun all

[Batman]

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 ofal. Yeah I can see some experience of that being very useful.

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.

Knowing how to cut an animals throat correctly so it bleeds and reduces blood preasure before you start to disembowl it. Yes very useful knowledge to have in context of these murders.

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

However you seem to have accepted that Dr Brown was careful of his wording at the inquest. As a word was redacted. And this is the case made by A to Z authors, that when pressed medical opinion was careful to express the 'expertise' discussed at the Chapman inquest… So opinion about the Skill of the killer changed at the time of the Eddows inquest. Yet I'm confused whether your saying the Dr's did this of their own violation or were forced into it by police. If the later is this not a conspiracy theory?

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.

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.

[Errata]

The butcher interpretation fails on its own lack of merits. Just ask any question about it.

For example why should slaughtering an ungulate like a bovine confer any advantage to JtR over say a fishmonger or poultry preparation?

All one is claiming here is professional gutting experience on scales that are large enough to a mimic a human. Modern forensic pathology would deem this view superfluous.

Oh yeah just another coincidence Nichols was killed next to a slaughter yard and the killer gaining butcher status.

There is zero evidence of 'butchering' in the murders. Don't you think JtR would have actually literally butchered if a butcher?

There is zero chance that Jack was butcher. Just like there is zero chance he was a dwarf. If you are a butcher there is a way you cut because you cut that way everyday for years and and years. Muscle memory. You can't help it. Jack didn't cut like a butcher. He also didn't cut like a dwarf. We can tell by the way he cuts that he has full length arms. Dwarfs don't. Not a dwarf.

Not that anyone brought up a dwarf, but it's the same thing. The evidence is there, if one chooses to think about it. I can also state with absolute certainty that he wasn't a double amputee. See? It's easy.

As far as anatomical comparison I think a sheep can get you where you need to be, but no animal a butcher come in contact with has an analog to a human uterus. It's us and monkeys. Every other mammal has some variant of a horned uterus. So If you are looking for a sheep uterus in a human, you are going to be looking for a very long time. And more than likely you are going to take the descending colon.

Fishmongering is where the best knife skills come from. Period. A fishmonger can do things with a knife that would cause a pathologist to cramp up and cry. Jack was good. But he wasn't that good. Every sailor can render a fish, which might be enough for Jack's skill level. But if you are going to cut off a finger, you are going to do it with a fish, not a cow. Fishmongers are more careful than butchers. Fishmongering cannot help you find organs in a human, but it can allow a person to work quickly and carefully.

And when it boils right down to it, and we forget this sometimes, Victorian men were not neanderthals. They went to school, they talked to people who went to more school than they did. If nothing else, boxing was popular, and kidney shots were against the rules. They know stuff. I mean, we all know where a kidney generally is right? We didn't have to go to medical school to figure that out right? We looked it up. We asked someone. We remember from science class. We've been punched in the kidney hard enough to piss blood. We know this stuff. They knew this stuff. This isn't rocket science. I mean, they didn't get a headache and freak out thinking that Athena was going to spring full grown from their forehead. We tend to make this complicated, and I do it too. But the truth is that they knew stuff. They're not feral humans. Even the homeless guy next to my work could tell you where the kidneys are. The kidney are on the back below the ribs. Once you cut into a body, you can put your hand in there and feel them. Cut there. You know?

And yeah a uterus doesn't actually look like it does in every medical text ever, but that doesn't matter. We all know its connected to the vagina. You stick your finger in, you wiggle it, whatever organ moves is the uterus. Cut there. Don't cut your finger off.

It takes imagination maybe, but not an MD.

[Batman]

As far as anatomical comparison I think a sheep can get you where you need to be, but no animal a butcher come in contact with has an analog to a human uterus. It's us and monkeys.

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.

And when it boils right down to it, and we forget this sometimes, Victorian men were not neanderthals. They went to school, they talked to people who went to more school than they did.

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.

Even the homeless guy next to my work could tell you where the kidneys are. The kidney are on the back below the ribs. Once you cut into a body, you can put your hand in there and feel them. Cut there. You know?

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.

And yeah a uterus doesn't actually look like it does in every medical text ever, but that doesn't matter. We all know its connected to the vagina. You stick your finger in, you wiggle it, whatever organ moves is the uterus. Cut there. Don't cut your finger off.

It takes imagination maybe, but not an MD.

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.

[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.

[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