organs

[Mutt]

I'm forced to believe that his selection of souveniers, as were his crimes purely opportunistic.

I tend to agree.

Also, any person experienced in cleaning animals, or having access to some basic anatomy should be able to locate major organs. In some of the murders I question whether or not the killer was targeting any specific organ at all.

Take for example the Chapman murder. The killer cleanly cut away a portion of the pelvis, uterus, vagina and 2/3 of the bladder, after removing the intestines and placing them on the victim's left shoulder.

[Trevor Marriott]

But to facilitate the removal of the organs in the cut and slash way you suggest would take a great deal of luck having regard to the light available to him and as you and the location of the kidney. It also has to be borne in mind that all of the internal organs would have been very slippery and difficult to grasp. Thats why modern day surgeons etc wear gloves helps them to grip organs eaasily

[FutureM.D.]

I always wish someone could clarify what they mean by "anatomical knowledge", as if they think people of the era we're completly ignorant of the human body. No, of course the Ripper probably wouldn't know terms like pericardium or renal artery of fallopian tube, but that doesn't indicate ignorance of location or function. The heart was obviously well known as it was considered for eons as the center of emotion (failing that I doubt anyone could not be aware of their own heartbeat). And of course suggesting that anyone, let alone a female targeting sexual sadist, would be unaware of where the vagina or the uterus (womb for the victorians)was, is simply silly. The only one that is even mildly problematic are the kidneys, even still if the killers intention was to have a have a meal of it (if one is to believe the Lusk letter, which I do) why would someone with any real medical knowledge i.e a surgeon leave the renal artery attached as they're almost completly indigestable? Further still to pass up the liver in favor of the kidneys is odd culinary choice. It is infinately more likely that he just cut and grabbed whatever he came buy. The police surgeon seems to have simply ignored the fact that almost every organ had damage and Eddowes was completly splayed open from groin to sternum. Perhaps if the ripper had removed the kidney through a 4 inch incision and used a tournicate to tie off the arteries, I would be much more inclined to believe he possessed some great knowledge, but I'm forced to believe that his selection of souveniers, as were his crimes purely opportunistic.

[FutureM.D.]

I always wish someone could clarify what they mean by "anatomical knowledge", as if they think people of the era we're completly ignorant of the human body. No, of course the Ripper probably wouldn't know terms like pericardium or renal artery of fallopian tube, but that doesn't indicate ignorance of location or function. The heart was obviously well known as it was considered for eons as the center of emotion (failing that I doubt anyone could not be aware of their own heartbeat). And of course suggesting that anyone, let alone a female targeting sexual sadist, would be unaware of where the vagina or the uterus (womb for the victorians)was, is simply silly. The only one that is even mildly problematic are the kidneys, even still if the killers intention was to have a have a meal of it (if one is to believe the Lusk letter, which I do) why would someone with any real medical knowledge i.e a surgeon leave the renal artery attached as they're almost completly indigestable? Further still to pass up the liver in favor of the kidneys is odd culinary choice. It is infinately more likely that he just cut and grabbed whatever he came buy. The police surgeon seems to have simply ignored the fact that almost every organ had damage and Eddowes was completly splayed open from groin to sternum. Perhaps if the ripper had removed the kidney through a 4 inch incision and used a tournicate to tie off the arteries, I would be much more inclined to believe he possessed some great knowledge, but I'm forced to believe that his selection of souveniers, as were his crimes purely opportunistic.

I may be wrong but I think Diana's terminology was precise: the term 'inferior' simply refers to the mode or angle of access (inferior: from below or from behind) rather than a term of judgment (inferior: not as good). But then I may be misreading your question, too!

Hi Claire,

I wondered about that as I posted it too, whether I misunderstood the context, but I went ahead with the train of thought that occurred to me as a result of reading it...rather than addressing the specific use Diana had in mind for the term.

Cheers Claire.

[Ben]

It is important to always keep in mind that this killer achieved in a few minutes, in a dark uncontrolled environment, what a praticing surgeon would take many minutes to repeat under lighted & controlled conditions.

Exactly, WM, which is why a practicing surgeon doesn't emerge as a particularly likely candidate. Practicing surgeons aren't trained or obliged to operate in a "dark uncontrolled environment", nor are they trained or obliged to operate at great speed. Unfortunately, there were no second opinions at the Chapman murder as there were with subsequent victims such as Eddowes, where the "anatomical knowledge" theory was clearly in the minority.

Best regards,
Ben

[DVV]

Hi Sam
If rudimentary has the same meaning as basic, that is what Doctors Phillips and Brown agreed.

I believe (and Sam will correct me if I'm wrong) that Sam's words, "rudimentary in the extreme", do not really mean "basic", but less than basic.

Amitiés,
David

[claire]

No fears Sam, as I said, its that the way Diana phrased her comments about Mary sort or rang true for me regarding Kate....inferior access methods. It has more to do with your contention that the man had no anatomical skill than it is about Kate amigo. The method that is shown in both those murders to secure the organs taken...assuming they were his "choice"...does not bode well for a surgically skilled extractor.

Cheers Sam.

I may be wrong but I think Diana's terminology was precise: the term 'inferior' simply refers to the mode or angle of access (inferior: from below or from behind) rather than a term of judgment (inferior: not as good). But then I may be misreading your question, too!

[Wickerman]

Some statements by Dr Phillips should not go unnoticed;
(With reference to the injuries on the body of Annie Chapman, by way of example)

Cuts to the body..
"They could have been done by such an instrument as a medical man used for post-mortem purposes, but the ordinary surgical cases might not contain such an instrument"

Locating the organs..
"There were indications of anatomical knowledge which were only less indicated in consequence of haste"

Manner of extraction..
"The mode in which these portions were extracted showed some anatomical knowledge.."

It is important to always keep in mind that this killer achieved in a few minutes, in a dark uncontrolled environment, what a praticing surgeon would take many minutes to repeat under lighted & controlled conditions.

There is no practical way to judge the skill of a person operating on a fully clothed body, at night, in haste, and in silence. Hacking into the torso the way he did was a means towards an end, not a means by which his skill can be accessed.
What do you compare it to?
Dr Phillips understood this.

Please don't turn this into an Eddowes discussion, Mike

No fears Sam, as I said, its that the way Diana phrased her comments about Mary sort or rang true for me regarding Kate....inferior access methods. It has more to do with your contention that the man had no anatomical skill than it is about Kate amigo. The method that is shown in both those murders to secure the organs taken...assuming they were his "choice"...does not bode well for a surgically skilled extractor.

Cheers Sam.

[Sam Flynn]

When I read the above it occurred to me to ask you if you would categorize the removal of a kidney through the front of a body in similar fashion....as being an inferior choice?

Please don't turn this into an Eddowes discussion, Mike

.... Since we are not told that the ribs were broken or that the sternum was split he had to tunnel up from the abdomen, reaching into the rib cage inferiorly (from the bottom).

Hi Diana,

When I read the above it occurred to me to ask you if you would categorize the removal of a kidney through the front of a body in similar fashion....as being an inferior choice? Its just that I saw some symmetry there for a moment where I didnt expect to find any.

Id be interested in your thoughts.

My best regards.

[Bailey]

Just because it seems relevant - for those who want a more detailed understanding of the interior of the human body and who have a strong stomach, I'd suggest a look at Gunther Von Hagen's DVDs - Anatomy For Beginners being the good entry point. These are actual dissections of human bodies, so not for the faint hearted, but fascinating, and there were more than a few times watching them when something Ripper-related clicked into place and made more sense than it previously had.

B.

[thehood]

Thanks Sam Flynn! Your explanation is perfectly clear to me.
I should work on anatomy's skill then!

Cheers,
Thehood

[Jon Guy]

this is further suggestive evidence - if any more were needed - that the killer's knowledge of anatomy was rudimentary in the extreme.

Hi Sam

Unless, as in the previous cases he went straight into the abdomen and worked from there as his fancy took him, like with the Eddowes kidney. If rudimentary has the same meaning as basic, that is what Doctors Phillips and Brown agreed.