Kates Cuts

[Michael W Richards]

ELA 6 Oct '88
"The rumour, at most, appears to have been an idle one, and in respect of the sum mentioned to the coroner - namely, Ģ20, as the price offered, and the object of the American, as stated by him - the story is discredited. At the Middlesex Hospital the official who on other points refused to elucidate the matter; characterised the tale, as far as the above details are concerned, as a silly story. Furthermore, at University College, where pains were taken to return an unqualified answer of "no information," it was hinted that the story as it has been made public had in some way, become mixed with error, and that it was very certain that it provided no explanation of the motive of the crime."

From Wynne Baxter, Inquest summation, Daily Telegraph, Sept 27...

"...I received a communication from an officer of one of our great medical schools, that they had information which might or might not have a distinct bearing on our inquiry. I attended at the first opportunity, and was told by the sub-curator of the Pathological Museum that some months ago an American had called on him, and asked him to procure a number of specimens of the organ that was missing in the deceased. He stated his willingness to give œ20 for each, and explained that his object was to issue an actual specimen with each copy of a publication on which he was then engaged. Although he was told that his wish was impossible to be complied with, he still urged his request. He desired them preserved, not in spirits of wine, the usual medium, but in glycerine, in order to preserve them in a flaccid condition, and he wished them sent to America direct. It is known that this request was repeated to another institution of a similar character. Now, is it not possible that the knowledge of this demand may have incited some abandoned wretch to possess himself of a specimen. It seems beyond belief that such inhuman wickedness could enter into the mind of any man, but unfortunately our criminal annals prove that every crime is possible."

I don't believe that this quote reflects your opinion, and the matter not being discussed by University College doesn't mean they couldn't validate it.

[JeffHamm]

But your explanation falls down for two reasons, the first being that with the evisceration of the body of Kelly there was clearly no anatomical knowledge shown by her killer, which is in complete opposite to Chapman, and I would also say Eddowes, which suggests she was not killed by the same hand as Chapman and Eddowes.

Secondly for your explanation to stand up it has to be accepted that Kelly`s heart was taken away, and that is not an ascertained fact by a long chalk.

www.trevormarriott.co.uk

The contemporary views concerning anatomical knowledge, skill, was all over the place, ranging from no evidence even of the knowledge of a butcher on up to familiearity with the disecting room. While Pillips hinted at medical knowledge for Chapman, he also stated that the knowledge and skills of a butcher/slaughterman would be sufficient. While he thought Eddowes' uterus was targeted, other medical professionals saw no indication of targeting any particular organ, and so forth. Also, they argue that the taking of her kidney required some level of anatomical knowledge. With regards to Chapman, the only real pointer was the removal of the uterus, which is in the end, just one thing he did (and damaged the bladder, and apparently the colon, in the process). As for Eddowes, there have been other killers who have removed kidneys from victims (Chase did this), with no anatomical knowledge/training. As for Kelly, some have argued that removing the heart the way it was done required anatomical knowledge (and by "anatomical knowledge" I don't specifically mean medically trained, just the knowledge of where things are generally found in a body). And we unfortunately don't know if any skill was shown in how her other organs (liver, spleen, etc) were removed. I would suggest that since there is no reports of feacal matter at her crime scene, that some level of skill was probably required, but not sure how much that might require really.

Basically, there is no consensus with regards to what skills or level of anatomical knowledge the killer had to have, so the fact that one might argue there's more here and less here, etc, is just noting the variation that happens between events.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree with respect to Kelly's heart. I know you view the reports as ambiguous, and as you know, they read to me as being quite clear and to the point, so we're not going to make any headway on that. So, while I understand why you think my argument falls down from your perspective, you can see why I think it holds firm. If we disagree on the evidence, then it is not surprising we'll end up at different conclusions.

- Jeff

[Michael W Richards]

You mentioned that the idea that Kates uterus was targeted wasn't put forward, I think its obvious why. If he targeted it and only was able to excise it partially, hes not very good. And a butcher or hunter would work. But it contrasts what is seen with Annie. Phillips did suggest that Annies killer sought to obtain exactly what he took...albeit with some extra bits..and that he cut into her with that objective in mind. "No meaningless cuts..". That kind of comment doesn't appear in any other medical review of the evidence in any other Unsolved case of the period. Annies murder is for my money THE murder that creates a Ripper, and it can be married with the murderer less that 2 weeks prior in almost every pertinent category.

[Sam Flynn]

"No meaningless cuts..".

Try telling that to Annie's bladder or colon. Or the totally unnecessary three chunks of flesh that were hacked out of her abdominal wall, when a couple of well-placed incisions would not only have sufficed to open her up, but would have been quicker.

That kind of comment doesn't appear in any other medical review of the evidence

Those weren't Phillips' words, but Wynne Baxter's. So not a medical review, but those of a flamboyant non-medic who didn't hesitate to introduce his own opinions and ridiculous pet theories into proceedings.

[Fisherman]

Try telling that to Annie's bladder or colon. Or the totally unnecessary three chunks of flesh that were hacked out of her abdominal wall, when a couple of well-placed incisions would not only have sufficed to open her up, but would have been quicker.

Indeed! Therefore, we may conclude that although the "chunks of flesh" you speak of (and they were four, not three - one had gone lost) were unnecessary in order to excise the uterus and appendages, it seems the killer wanted to cut them away nevertheless. And so the logical deduction is that they were cut away for another reason than the procurement of the lost organ. And that of course makes them much more interesting per se since they introduce an element that is extremely rare, even in evisceration murder cases.

Those weren't Phillips' words, but Wynne Baxter's. So not a medical review, but those of a flamboyant non-medic who didn't hesitate to introduce his own opinions and ridiculous pet theories into proceedings.

Interestingly, though, Baxters views are very much allowed for in the Nichols case, where his assertion that it was never likely that the killer cut the abdomen before the neck is bought straight off, no questions asked. In that particular case, his word is taken over that of the trained and examining medico Llewellyns word. That idea of his is not scorned or called a ridiculous pet theory.
For whatever reason.

PS. Baxters words about "no meaningless cuts" are probably guided by him having spoken to medically trained people anyway if you ask me. Just like you say, he was not qualified to make that kind of judgement himself.

[Fisherman]

"No meaningless cuts..". That kind of comment doesn't appear in any other medical review of the evidence in any other Unsolved case of the period.

Not word for word, no - but Dr Galloway, who examined the Rainham victim was even more impressed with what the killer had achieved. Chapman is in no way unique when it comes to evoking feelings of awe coupled to the cutting skills of the killer.

[Michael W Richards]

Try telling that to Annie's bladder or colon. Or the totally unnecessary three chunks of flesh that were hacked out of her abdominal wall, when a couple of well-placed incisions would not only have sufficed to open her up, but would have been quicker.

Those weren't Phillips' words, but Wynne Baxter's. So not a medical review, but those of a flamboyant non-medic who didn't hesitate to introduce his own opinions and ridiculous pet theories into proceedings.

From the Inquest transcripts Telegraph Sept 20th: "Dr. Phillips: I think I can guide you by saying that I myself could not have performed all the injuries I saw on that woman, and effect them, even without a struggle, under a quarter of an hour. If I had done it in a deliberate way, such as would fall to the duties of a surgeon, it would probably have taken me the best part of an hour. The whole inference seems to me that the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body."

Youre correct Sam that I misattributed the quote, but not about what Phillips thought. The sloppy bits and pieces you mentioned are acceptably within that same premise, it was still dark..he was in a hurry, and he had to feel some of the danger. He didn't have the half hour a surgeon would need to do this properly, using Phillips words.

[Sam Flynn]

"...the operation was performed to enable the perpetrator to obtain possession of these parts of the body" does not translate to "no meaningless cuts". It simply means that the body was cut open and the organs cut out to enable the killer to take possession of them.

[Fisherman]

It is perfectly obvious that there were superfluous cuts to Chapmans body if we work from the presumption that the killer wanted to obtain the uterus and itīs appendages. To enable an excision of those parts, it was not necessary to cut away the abdominal flesh from Chapman. The Eddowes murder bears witness to that - no abdominal flaps removed, and still the killer could cut out the uterus. AND a kidney, for that matter.

It is nevertheless quite obvious that Phillips was impressed by the killers cutting skills, and reinterpreting matters to try and create a picture of a sloppy deed with random cutting only will not do.

The killer was a skilled cutter, he was able to remove the uterus and itīs appendages in a manner that had Phillips impressed, but it would be to go too far to claim that there were no meaningless cuts - IF, that is, we work from the presumption that the idea was to remove the uterus. And Baxter and Phillips alike apparently worked from that presumption (and Baxter could perhaps have been speaking of the cuts involved in the uterus removal process only when he phrased himself the way he did).

As I stated in my former post, this leaves us with the all-important question why the killer cut away the abdominal flesh at all. He took great care to do so, and produced four flaps (or sections) of abdominal flesh in the process.

It seems obvious enough that the aim was not to procure slabs of abdominal flesh for keeping, since he left three out of four sections behind and apparently only kept section four since it had parts of the reproductive organs attaching to it.

So he was not after the abdominal flesh; it was not meant for keeping. Nor did he have to remove it to get at the innards. And still he did this.

Ask yourselves: What is the result of cutting away the abdominal flesh from a corpse? That is the truly vital question we are left with.

Anyone?

[Fisherman]

By the way, am I the only one thinking that "Kates cuts" sounds like the name of a Bronx meat restaurant...?

[Michael W Richards]

It is perfectly obvious that there were superfluous cuts to Chapmans body if we work from the presumption that the killer wanted to obtain the uterus and itīs appendages. To enable an excision of those parts, it was not necessary to cut away the abdominal flesh from Chapman. The Eddowes murder bears witness to that - no abdominal flaps removed, and still the killer could cut out the uterus. AND a kidney, for that matter.

It is nevertheless quite obvious that Phillips was impressed by the killers cutting skills, and reinterpreting matters to try and create a picture of a sloppy deed with random cutting only will not do.

The killer was a skilled cutter, he was able to remove the uterus and itīs appendages in a manner that had Phillips impressed, but it would be to go too far to claim that there were no meaningless cuts - IF, that is, we work from the presumption that the idea was to remove the uterus. And Baxter and Phillips alike apparently worked from that presumption (and Baxter could perhaps have been speaking of the cuts involved in the uterus removal process only when he phrased himself the way he did).

As I stated in my former post, this leaves us with the all-important question why the killer cut away the abdominal flesh at all. He took great care to do so, and produced four flaps (or sections) of abdominal flesh in the process.

It seems obvious enough that the aim was not to procure slabs of abdominal flesh for keeping, since he left three out of four sections behind and apparently only kept section four since it had parts of the reproductive organs attaching to it.

So he was not after the abdominal flesh; it was not meant for keeping. Nor did he have to remove it to get at the innards. And still he did this.

Ask yourselves: What is the result of cutting away the abdominal flesh from a corpse? That is the truly vital question we are left with.

Anyone?

I think that his madness might outweigh his training Fisherman, and acquired skills. Ive never claimed he was surgeon In Annies case, just that he impressed the medical examiners enough to instigate a search of medical students and practitioners. Using a logical reconstruction of cutting activities might not be a practical approach considering he was obviously ill mentally. He cut in a manner that would enable him to take just what he took..thats really the point here.

Kates Cuts....(I just liked the alliteration)..is really about the many superfluous cuts made on Kate. I don't think you can argue that the flaps cut from Annie were superfluous, just that they were not required. And cuts to the face on Eddowes served no practical purpose if the goal was a kidney, or the abdomen in general. Like the impractical and time wasting cuts made on Kelly later.

[Fisherman]

I think that his madness might outweigh his training Fisherman, and acquired skills.

His "madness"? I donīt think he would have been regarded as mad by his contemporaries, nor by a judge and jury - if they had been introduced to the killer. Of course, he deviated from the normal behavior, but so did Sutcliffe, Ridgway, Shawcross etc, neither of whom were "mad".

Ive never claimed he was surgeon In Annies case, just that he impressed the medical examiners enough to instigate a search of medical students and practitioners.

I agree. He was certainly not doing it a surgeonīs way, but he did have cutting skills.

Using a logical reconstruction of cutting activities might not be a practical approach considering he was obviously ill mentally.

Ooops - thereīs that "obviously" that tends to get in the way of a measured debate. As I said, he deviated from the normal, but there is no reason at all to believe that he would have been "mad" in any traditional sense. Rather the opposite, actually. One very good comparison would be Sean Vincent Gillis, who killed women and cut out organs, cut off hands and sliced the meat from their thighs, after which he posed the victims in explicit ways. This comes very, very close to what we see in the Ripper cases. But was Gillis mad or mentally ill? Nope, he was not. So you may just as well drop that notion before it becomes an obstacle to your thinking.

He cut in a manner that would enable him to take just what he took..thats really the point here.

No, he did not. He cut in a manner that was way beyond what he needed to do. THAT is the point, Michael. He did NOT need to take away the abdominal wall to get at the uterus - and still he did. Before you understand why, I really donīt think you stand much of a chance to decode what happened.

Kates Cuts....(I just liked the alliteration)..is really about the many superfluous cuts made on Kate. I don't think you can argue that the flaps cut from Annie were superfluous, just that they were not required. And cuts to the face served no practical purpose if the goal was a kidney, or the abdomen in general. Like the impractical and time wasting cuts made on Kelly later.

I would never argue that the flaps were superfluous to the killer. They were superfluous to the aim of extracting the uterus, though. So they are parallel to Kated facial cuts - they served ANOTHER purpose than eviscerations.
What the killer did to Kelly was not wasteful at all, by the way. Not if you ask me, at least. I believe it was all very deliberate and purposeful, from the cutting away of the thigh flesh down to the bone to the facial hacking. It was all part of the same agenda - that was also expressed by cutting away Annie Chapmans abdominal flesh. There was a reason for it, a purpose.

[Abby Normal]

It is perfectly obvious that there were superfluous cuts to Chapmans body if we work from the presumption that the killer wanted to obtain the uterus and itīs appendages. To enable an excision of those parts, it was not necessary to cut away the abdominal flesh from Chapman. The Eddowes murder bears witness to that - no abdominal flaps removed, and still the killer could cut out the uterus. AND a kidney, for that matter.

It is nevertheless quite obvious that Phillips was impressed by the killers cutting skills, and reinterpreting matters to try and create a picture of a sloppy deed with random cutting only will not do.

The killer was a skilled cutter, he was able to remove the uterus and itīs appendages in a manner that had Phillips impressed, but it would be to go too far to claim that there were no meaningless cuts - IF, that is, we work from the presumption that the idea was to remove the uterus. And Baxter and Phillips alike apparently worked from that presumption (and Baxter could perhaps have been speaking of the cuts involved in the uterus removal process only when he phrased himself the way he did).

As I stated in my former post, this leaves us with the all-important question why the killer cut away the abdominal flesh at all. He took great care to do so, and produced four flaps (or sections) of abdominal flesh in the process.

It seems obvious enough that the aim was not to procure slabs of abdominal flesh for keeping, since he left three out of four sections behind and apparently only kept section four since it had parts of the reproductive organs attaching to it.

So he was not after the abdominal flesh; it was not meant for keeping. Nor did he have to remove it to get at the innards. And still he did this.

Ask yourselves: What is the result of cutting away the abdominal flesh from a corpse? That is the truly vital question we are left with.

Anyone?

to expose the insides

[Fisherman]

Exactly so, Abby. To expose the inside.

[c.d.]

As a footnote....there is absolutely no evidence in existence, known to this point in time, that would lend credence to a guess that Liz Stride was soliciting the night she is killed.

Even if this were a proven fact all it tells us is that Stride was not soliciting that night. That's it. Period. It does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that she was not a Ripper victim. I don't know why you hammer this point so much. As it has been repeatedly pointed out to you, we have absolutely no way of knowing what her response would be if approached by a potential client even if it were her intention to not actively solicit that evening.

c.d.