To Womb It May Concern

[The Good Michael]

Gman,

I think he ate them.

Mike

[Gman992]

If he was after the organs, what was he doing with them? Selling them? With Mary Kelly, it looks like he just cut her up and left her organs everywhere.

[Sam Flynn]

Cue Sam Flynn M.D.

= "Mere Dabbler"

[DVV]

I agree : the question should be about "medical knowledge".
"Anatomical knowledge" is meaningless.

Amitiés,
David

[Trevor Marriott]

Hi Trevor and all,

what does "anatomical knowledge" mean exactly ?
My heart is over there, my liver rather to the right, intestines are below the stomach...
That's already "anatomical knowledge"...
The way Jack gained access to the organs (Chapman/Kelly, as well as the "Eddowes method") seems quite messy.

Amitiés
David

In this context the person who removed the organs has some medical knowledege as to how to enter the abdomen and abdomnal cavity. As previoulsy stated this was different in the case of Eddowes and Chapman sugesting that two different persons were responsible. If it had been the same person I would suggest he would have used the same method of entry.

Certainly a cut and slash method was not the method used to extract the organs at the crime scene. Cut and slash is what the killer did to the victims at the crime scene.

Here is part of a statement i obtained from a consultant gynecologist who reviewed the post mortem and inquest reports of Edowes and Chapman

this is in relation to Chapman murder.

I note that in this case it is reported that the appendages were removed. In addition the uterus and cervix were removed, the transverse incision cutting through the vagina. However in this case a portion of bladder was also removed.

Anatomically the bladder is loosely attached in front of the cervix and must be reflected out of the way when performing a hysterectomy, (removing the uterus). In patients who have had a pelvic infection (as a prostitute may well have done) this attachment may be quite dense and tough. The removal of a portion of the bladder suggests to me that speed was important, but does not help determine where or when it was done. However I note that in this case it seems to have been important to remove the female pelvic organs intact (i.e. uterus, cervix, ovaries and fallopian tubes), which could, in conjunction with a nephrectomy suggest removal for experimentation.

As to the time and feasibility of undertaking these procedures in semi-darkness, the Doctors assessment at the time of the inquest was probably around about right.

Now thats from an "expert" note removal for experimantation" Again i re iterate these removals could not have been performed in almost total darkness quickly. The doctors of the day gave a time scale but they dont clarify whether that timescale was based on normal conditions.

Cue Sam Flynn M.D.

[DVV]

these actions would be all the more difficult due to lack of light, so it seems probable that the killer was intimate with internal anatomy. to be able to do this quickly, the killer would need at least a basic knowledge of anatomy.

Hi Joel,

as you said, the position of the uterus is very common knowledge.
Eddowes kidney ? Just by chance.
And it was small enough to be easilly hidden.
For Mary, he had both more time and more light.
But what a mess.

Amitiés,
David

[joelhall]

i believe the term 'anatomical knowledge' refers to the way organs were extracted rather than where they were. for instance, child birth has obviously occurred since the dawn of humans, and pregnant women have a prominent bump - the location of a uterus is fairly common knowledge. anyone whod ever done some hard manual work would no doubt have felt his heart pounding in his chest. when we breath heavily the chest expands further, when we need the toilet - well we all know where we feel like well burst, and when hungry... you get the picture.

knowing where various parts of the body were or their basic function was not restricted to a particular class of people, it was simply a matter of observation. indeed it is not true that all of the working class were illiterate people who knew nothing of the world in general. this was of course true for a certain percentage of the population, particularly the extremely poor and criminal classes, however.

despite this, most people would see a picture of internal organs laid out and be stumped as to how to remove them - in which direction, for instance, would one pull out the intestines, making sure they did actually come out? where would one cut in order to gain access to a kidney? how quickly could anyone here locate and sever all the blood vessels connected to the kidney? which is the most efficient cut and in which direction would one move the overlying organs in order to gain access to the uterus?

indeed in mary kellys case, the heart is protected by the sternum, hidden by the stomach, surrounded by pericardium, and between the lungs and their pleura. having said that, the killer evidently had plenty of time with light, and behind closed doors, to investigate the inside of the victim fully. it does however show, he was probably not familiar with surgical or post mortem techniques.

these actions would be all the more difficult due to lack of light, so it seems probable that the killer was intimate with internal anatomy. to be able to do this quickly, the killer would need at least a basic knowledge of anatomy.

however, this could of course indicate people from all sorts of backgrounds - doctors, nurses, anatomists, biologists, the poor who helped in the mortuary, people who had seen action in the army or navy (the latter who would preserve bodies in spirits of wine allegedly), people who cut up animals - the list is no as short as one would imagine and continues from here, perhaps even people whod had a fairly good education or read a lot of books (and yes they could get access to them).

if the intention was to get to the uterus as has been suggested, many people with no knowledge of the structure of female anatomy would be surprised at just how small this organ is. the kidney, again if the killer actually intended to remove this, is not so easy to locate from the front of the body, especially given time constraints. this seems to be how the evidence was based - there being no unnecessary cuts, assuming an intention of removing the given organ.

however, i do not believe the killer intended to remove anything specific, nor did he most likely even know which organ he had got. in all probability he simply ripped the body organs out until he found one small enough that he could secrete it about his person, as quickly as he could.

this would not require any real specialist knowledge of anatomy, just the speed, strong stomach, and determination to do the work.

he wouldnt have had the knowledge of a surgeon from the descriptions of the mutilations, but could certainly have had the knowledge of an animal slaughterer or butcher, or virtually anyone whod ever bothered to found out the relevant information, if they were after a particular organ.

if this were the case, why different parts each time? simply because he didnt know what he was really doing, he was simply just doing.

in short - he got lucky.

[DVV]

Hi Trevor and all,

what does "anatomical knowledge" mean exactly ?
My heart is over there, my liver rather to the right, intestines are below the stomach...
That's already "anatomical knowledge"...
The way Jack gained access to the organs (Chapman/Kelly, as well as the "Eddowes method") seems quite messy.

Amitiés
David

[Sam Flynn]

Ever think that Jack was "working his way up" in his dissections. He starts out small, some mutilation, then it progresses to cutting out the intestines, then the kidney(s), until the "full-on" dissection of Mary Kelly? Just a thought.

I've thought the same - indeed, I started a thread many years ago entitled "Working his way to the heart?". That said, the apparent "progression" is quite readily explained in terms of the time available and spur-of-the-moment opportunism.

[Trevor Marriott]

Trevor Marriott writes:

"You also have to bear in mind that the organs of Eddowes and Chapman were removed in different ways which as i said before suggests that two different persons were responsible for the removal of the organs.."

...unless it suggests something else - that the Ripper was not schooled enough in anatomy to be consistent in his work.

The best,
Fisherman

Then the second method he used should have been the same as the first two different methods used both showing anatomical knowledge

[The Good Michael]

GMAN,

Of course some sort of progression has always been the argument with the murders. Leaving Stride out of the occasion as a one-off or as slashus interruptus, one can certainly see it that way. As for me, everything seems experimental with just the taking of something being at the very least a secondary goal. The argument for a progression is very valid, however and has been used even by contemporaries.

Cheers,

Mike

[Gman992]

Ever think that Jack was "working his way up" in his dissections. He starts out small, some mutilation, then it progresses to cutting out the intestines, then the kidney(s), until the "full-on" dissection of Mary Kelly? Just a thought. Granted he really didn't have the time--hence the double event--to do a full on until he tricked or trapped Mary Kelly off of the streets into her room. Prostitutes didn't like to be really "alone" with their tricks lest something bad happens to them.

[Fisherman]

Trevor Marriott writes:

"You also have to bear in mind that the organs of Eddowes and Chapman were removed in different ways which as i said before suggests that two different persons were responsible for the removal of the organs.."

...unless it suggests something else - that the Ripper was not schooled enough in anatomy to be consistent in his work.

The best,
Fisherman

[Trevor Marriott]

Sam
That mat be crude in your eyes but the level of expertise in removing those type of organs was not as it is today so this has to be taken into account. The doctors stated "Some anatomical knowledge" they didnt state as to what level those statements refferred to.

You also have to bear in mind that the organs of Eddowes and Chapman were removed in different ways which as i said before suggests that two different persons were responsible for the removal of the organs..

That in itself must raise a serious doubt about the killer/s removing the organs at the scene. Put that with other facts which would have made it almost impossible for those organs to have been removed by the killers at the time.

And if took what he could as you suggest surely the heart would have been an obvious first choice not something as complicated and difficult to reach like the kidney

[Sam Flynn]

Pragmatically speaking Sam,.... all we can use to deduce what organs if any the killer sought to obtain during the course of the murders, or as being the catalyst for the killings, are what organs he took with him in full or partial form.

Personally, I see no reason to suppose that he didn't simply take what he could, according to circumstance and opportunity. To that extent, every "trophy" murder in the Whitechapel series is consistent.

But some organs were taken in a manner that was consistent with a killer having knowledge how to do so efficiently...

I fail to see how effecting a crude hysterectomy, after opening a cavity equivalent (in human terms) to a meteor crater, can be seen as "efficient" by any stretch of the imagination.